Obsession

The Irish Times interviews Eamon Gilmore, the Irish Labour leader in today's edition, and a classic federast political line comes out.

"Irish people needed to stop being "fixated" on the treaty" he said. Of course it isn't the Irsh people who are fixated on the Treaty after all they defeated it and legally killed it. Instead it is the Irish political class who are fixated on finding any means by which they can overturn the Referendum result.

So though Gilmore, utterly rejected a seond referendum on the Treaty at the time of his defeat he is coming round to the idea. But of course it won't be a referendum on the Treaty, but a broader one,

it was incumbent on voters to hold a wider discussion about Ireland's relationship with Europe, as well as the future of the EU itself.

However, when asked if the people would need to be consulted again about the treaty, he replied: "Of course . . . any change in an EU treaty requires a referendum here. There is obviously going to be another referendum at some point on a European issue. The question is what question is going to be put to people in that referendum?

"We would be more productively engaged if we addressed the general question of where the EU is going [and] what our relationship with Europe is.

Ah now I understand Mr Gilmore. He is talking about having an in/out referendum. The question to be formulated in a In (including the Treaty) or Out (where you will starve and the evil Brits will control your destiny once more).

So Mr Gilmore, your fixation on the EU, and the Treaty in particular would leave you holding the people to ransom. The thing is it is unecessary. There is no need for a second referendum, none at all.

Sofia stories

There are two very different but strangely apposite stories coming out of Bulgaria this weekend. The first, which has received headlines around the world, but has only been picked up by the Guardian in the UK is that Bulgaria is the sixth and latest of the EU 27 to ratify the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

The vote of 195-15 was, of course, a foregone conclusion. So much so that the event was witnessed by MEPs, the Bulgarian diplomatic corps and various great and good. His neo-Imperial Highness, Mr Barosso was of course delighted.

The only opposition were 10 MPs from the nationalist Ataka party and five independents who had been calling for a referendum. These demands were dismissed out hand by the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, Ivaylo Kalfin countered the idea saying the a referendum in unnecessary,

“since even the leader of Ataka didn't understand what the treaty is all about”.

Whereas of course the 195 lobby fodder really had a clue...

The other story is what I guess we should expect more of,

About 350,000 euro in counterfeit bills were found in the possession of two individuals after a police operation in Sofia, the head of Chief Directorate for Combating Organised Crime told reporters on March 21.

The two were arrested close to Madara swimming complex in downtown Sofia while closing the deal to sell the counterfeit euro bills. In other places in Sofia, police found another 5000 euro in counterfeit bills as well as a firearm that had not been licensed and 200 dozes of hard drugs.

Interesting Europol was involved in the case. Which is no surprise seeing as how one of the key 'European crimes' involving the European Arrest and evidence warrant is the counterfeiting of the Euro.

Update

Whoops missed two others but they seem to confirm the trend.

Firstly today sees the opening of the European Information Office in Sofia. Maginficent timing, it will allow Bulgarians to read the Treaty that their politicians ratified on their behalf all of twenty four hours previously.

And secondly, it appears that Euro crime is a real growth industry in Bulgaria,

European Commission has frozen funding under pre-accession aid programmes for Bulgaria over fears that organised crime in the country had created an entire system for defrauding European Union funds, Dnevnik daily reported on March 19, quoting sources familiar with talks between officials in Brussels and Sofia.

Worse yet, the EU executive body believed that the criminals enjoyed protection from officials at the highest level, the newspaper claimed. EC cut off funding for Bulgaria under the Ispa (infrastructure), Phare (development) and Sapard (agriculture) pre-accession programmes, but is also stalling on signing projects that would be financed with structural funds under operational programmes for transport and regional development.

Brussels' suspicions that criminal schemes were protected by high-level officials grew after Bulgarian authorities showed almost no reaction to the results of an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which uncovered an international scheme for defrauding SAPARD funds with Bulgarian participation....

On March 18, police arrested Ivan Ivanov, deputy head of the Chief Directorate for Combating Organised Crime, in charges of abusing his power and disclosing classified information about ongoing police investigations. Although little information on the case was announced, it was seen as the consequence of the tip-off made last week by opposition member of Parliament Atanas Atanasov.

Oh boy, and we thought that the Parliamentary expenses scandal was a problem, just wait until these chaps have got their feet fully under the table.

Comment Forum

I Hadda Referendum

Congratulations to the "I wanna Referendum" team on the results of their referenda up and down the country.

I cannot pretend that I was eveer in doubt as to the result of the experiment, 88% voted No. But my fear was that the turnout would be too small and thus undermine the moral power of the results.

By breaking the 35% barrier and thus getting a turnout greater than normal local elections they have shown that the interest of the peope of Britain in their own future is real.

The official press release from the ampaign has the following comments.

Polling expert Anthony Wells from UK Polling Report said: "A turnout in the mid thirties is stunning for a private referendum, higher than you'd expect to find in some actual local elections. Private referendums run the risk of only those sympathetic to the cause taking part in the vote, but with independent opinion polls consistently showing around four-fifths of those who express an opinion support a referendum, these don't seem too out of line."

Mike Hancock MP said: "I'm absolutely delighted that so many people have taken part. I knew that people were interested because so many of my constituents have got in touch with me about it."

Kate Hoey MP said: "This is a fantastic response. All MPs should now take note, listen to their constituents and vote for a referendum on Wednesday."

Derek Scott said: "This is a great result. These MPs must now make it clear whether they are prepared to listen to the wishes of their constituents or just ignore them."

Simon Hearn from Electoral Reform Services said: "Electoral Reform Services can confirm that the administration of the ballot went very smoothly. We are satisfied that any individual who received a ballot paper was able to vote in secret and have their vote accurately counted."

I repeat, congratulations to all involved.

Now can we start to work as a team?

Is Hoon frit?

I haven't written about the I Want a Referendum campaign as of yet. An oversight on my part. Good luck to them.

What is very wierd is what has happened to their planned poll in the Labour seat of Aberconwy. Here is their press release of yesterday,

The Welsh I Want A Referendum campaign has today made the decision not to hold its referendum in the constituency of Aberconwy on the advice of the Labour Party Chief Whip who has informed the campaign that local MP Betty Williams has been very poorly.

I Want A Referendum UK Chairman Derek Scott said: “On the advice of the Chief Whip, we have decided not to hold the referendum in the Aberconwy constituency because Betty Williams has been very poorly, and are now looking at an alternative constituency in Wales where we hope to run the campaign through February. We wish Mrs Williams a very speedy recovery.”

The referendum on the revised EU Constitution is being staged in constituencies across the UK to give voters the chance to have their say on this key issue of democracy and the handing over of greater powers to Europe.

A deecn thing to do, but a significant hit on their resources. The money has already been spent on advertising and organisation. But fair enough. But what is this?
Betty Williams isn't ill at all. According to PA,

Her most recent bout of serious illness came when spinal surgery necessitated a spell in a wheelchair in 1998.
"But that was 10 years ago," she said.
"I'm perfectly healthy.

Seems a little like Labour black ops here.

Then we have the Hoon's treatment of the four Labour supporters of the campaign. Having giving a tongue lashing at a Labour backbench meeting, it appears that the four, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Graham Stringer and Gisela Stuart are also to be carpetted by what a bunch of senior MPs called the PLP Committee. It looks as if they are to be Mr Brown's own 'whipless wonders'.

Will the new Wild Geese ever make it to Chad?

The original Wild Geese were those Irish catholics who fled from the island and joined the service of the French King. Now we have a new breed of Irishmen, being put in harms way for French imperial ambitions.

This week the Irish press has been full of two stories, both linked. There has been questions of the fabled neutrality vis-a-vis the Constitutional Referendum. The No campaign believing that Eire's neutrality to be compromised by aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Yes campaign denying any such thing.

Simultaneous to that has been the great burst of pride as General Nash finally takes command of the EU Force in Chad. A peacekeeping force delayed by many months due to logistical problems.

The problem is that no sooner is the force, which is mostly French but includes Irish and other contingents, off for deployment that it stops.

This all boils down to the fact reported here at the beggining of December and covered extensively in EU Referendum this force is not really a European Force at all but a fig leaf for unreconstructed French foreign policy. France is an ally of the Chadian dictator, and has taken sides. The peacekeepers are supposed to be neutral, so the rebels have declared war on France and by extension its EU allies.

So with the rebel forces closing in on the Chadian capital we discover,

However, a plane-load of 54 Irish special forces did not depart for N'Djamena, Chad's capital, and a cargo aircraft carrying equipment and a dozen Austrian soldiers turned back yesterday.

I was discussing the Irish referendum campaign with a couple of Sinn Fein staffers (politics does make for some strange aquaintances) and the Chad deployment came up,

EH "What would happen if a young Irish soldier came back in a body bag before
the vote"
SF "Can you organise it?"
EH "Sorry"
SFS "It's just that we don't have any active service units in Chad"
EH, "I suppose they are all in Colombia"

The point is of course is that either the sight of dead Irish soldiers returning having died for France, or the sight of Fench soldiers running amok amongst Africans slaughtering left right and centre whilst under the command of an Irish General could have a major impact on the Treaty poll.

War-battered dogs are we,
Fighters in every clime;
Fillers of trench and of grave,
Mockers bemocked by time.
War-dogs hungry and grey,
Gnawing a naked bone,
Fighters in every clime
Every cause but our own

The EU as a concept and an ethos

In the Treaty debate Labour's Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) told the House today,

"We have not given any powers away to the European Union, we have pooled our sovereignty, we have pooled our competencies and we have done that in our national interests and in the interests of the EU as a concept and as an ethos."

What does he mean by this? If competancies are the powers to do stuff and we have pooled them then they are no longer ours by right therefore we have given away powers. Internally contradictory and logically flawed.

And what the hell is the EU as an ethos?

Small, dull, rich, wet and free

Sometimes we are told that if we were to leave the EU we would become more like Norway. What an awful prospect.
The reports today from that country are heartening though,

The poll, conducted by Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK), measured would-be voter response to a proposed application for EU membership in January.

Fully 54.3 percent of those responding said they would vote against seeking EU membership, while 34.6 percent said they would vote in favour of EU membership.
Just over 11 percent said they were undecided.

An interesting aspect of the EU debate in Norway is the majority needed in the Norwegian Parliament in order to put the question of EU membership to the vote. For a Constitutional change of such magnitude a full three quarters of MPs would need to support the idea. Though the Conservatives are in favour (they want to make it two thirds) the governing Labour Party are split - and with public opinion so fiercely against they have pushed any question to the other side o the next election.

Would that we in the UK had rules that protected the public from the ambitions of their politicians to such an extent. Changing the Constitution is not a normal law, and thus should have a far greater majority than normal laws.

EU ID?

Admiral Lord West has given a definitive, but oddly confusing response to a question from Lord Pearson,

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP) Hansard source
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have held any discussions with other European Union member state Governments on the eventual introduction of a harmonised European Union identity card and registration system; and, if so, whether they support this proposal.

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office) Hansard source
We have held no such discussions as there is no proposal for a harmonised European Union identity card. Twenty four out of the 27 EU member states currently have their own national identity card schemes, and whether they issue identity cards to their own nationals is a matter for the individual member state.

In December 2005, during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU, a set of council conclusions was agreed on the minimum security standards for national identity cards issued by member states, but these are not binding on member states. The EU Lisbon treaty will bring the format of national identity cards within Community competence, such competence already existing in relation to the format of passports.

Which confuses chaps like me. Sentence one of the response is categorical. "There is no proposal for a harmonised European Union identity card". Phew we can all breath a sigh of relief, but hold on, what's this in the second paragraph?
So in answer to Pearson's question, are there plans, well yes there are, and not only that they were UK Government suggestions.

What is more the plans reside within the Constitution/Reform Treaty. That phrase 'Community competence' translates in Eurospeak as 'Exclusive power' as opposed to shared or national competence. So where does it say this in the Treaty? Article 63, part 3 tells us,

3. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

So what was agreed in Council under the auspices of Charles Clarke,

Common minimum security standards for national identity cards - Council conclusions
The Council adopted the following conclusions:
"Recognising the mandate given to Member States by the Hague Programme and the 13 July 2005 Justice and Home Affairs Council;
Recognising the importance of ensuring the security of travel and other identity documents;
Recognising that the mandate relates only to security standards, not to any domestic uses of national identity cards and that no legally binding standards or timetables
are being imposed;
Without prejudging the issue of the possible legal basis for a measure harmonising minimum security standards for national identity cards and without affecting the right of each Member State to decide whether or not to issue national identity cards and whether to use biometric identifiers;
Recognising the priority to be attached to compliance with the standards established by the European Union in Council Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 on passports, and the draft regulations amending legislation on visas and residence permits. These standards are a reference point for those to be developed for identity cards;
Building upon the work already done on security features for passports, and bearing in mind the need for interoperability based on ICAO standards;

The Member States of the European Union, working together on an intergovernmental basis:
1. Have decided to accept the following interim conclusions of the experts working in the Committee created by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) 1683/95, which will be followed by more detailed technical standards in due course:
• as regards the security features other than biometric identifiers: to use the same
minimum standards on materials to be used, ink, printing techniques, etc. as those
established for passports, adapted to the card form of the identity card; and
• as regards the biometric identifiers: to use as a starting point the technical
specifications established for the integration of biometrics in the passport in accordance with Regulation (EC) 2252/2004.
2. Have decided to work towards putting in place the following minimum standards relating to the security of issuing processes:
• applicants should appear in person at least once during the issuing procedure for identity cards;
• applications should be verified by authorised personnel against existing databases
which should be regularly updated, for example, civil registers, passport and
identity cards databases or driving licence registers;
• monitoring of the issuing process is recommended, including where processes are
carried out by sub-contractors, and this should include regular audits;
• in principle, no single member of staff should carry out every part of the issuing process for an individual; and
• secure storage, transport and transmitting of data and components of documents should be ensured.
3. Have decided to further their cooperation by exchanging information on a regular basis on their national practices, taking into account the experiences of Member States regarding electronic identity cards."

So when Admiral West talks of these things being voluntary he is right, today. But whether they will continue to be voluntary after the ratification of the Treaty I really cannot tell, but that ominous phrase 'Community Competence' suggests not.

"For Britain, 2008 will be a year of real and serious changes"

So says Mr Brown in his New Year's message. And of course he is right 2008 will be a year of serious changes. But how is it that this most dishonest and devious of Prime Minister's fails to mention the key change that he is planning.

Yup no suprises what t is that is missing in his mesage of gloom and despondency. He fails to mention the European Constitution/Treaty that he plans to steamroller through the Houses of Parliament this Spring.

Somebody really should fisk the entire thing, bu to be honest I realy cannot be bothered. Sufice to say it is long on rhetoric and drivel about tough challenges.

Meaningless twaddle.

Give us another one do

Mr Zapatero is here in Brussels telling us how wonderful he is, and of course how simply splendid the EU is.

I am rather looking forward too this response to this speech from Graham Booth,

Prime Minister, It is a pleasure to see you here in Brussels. You are an exemplar to other European heads of government as a man who allowed your own people to decide whether they wished to have the Constitution. For that you must be applauded.

In the event the people of Spain voted overwhelmingly to support the plans.

What I would like to know is why you have no intention of repeating the exercise? After all you should be confident that you will get a similar result.

Is it because, as you have said the Reform Treaty has "not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional treaty go"?

If so it would stand to reason that you feel there is no need to ask your people the same question twice. Or is it the case, as presented to the British people that the Reform Treaty is so different as to be an entirely separate thing altogether and thus not worthy of the people's consent?

This of course is key to all our futures. Either the political elite don't care what people want, as in the case of Mr Sarkozy and Mr Brown, or they feel that the people are too stupid to make any decision more important than what burger to buy at McDonalds. It seems to me that the European Union is rapidly becoming the world's first post democratic state

I can tell you this Prime Minister, if the European elite do not allow the people to speak, then in the end they will find other ways to make their voice heard.

Egotism and the death of democracy

Sometimes when reading the thoughts of those over here I am well and truly shocked,

Now that the treaty has been agreed upon by the politicians, the question is how to take the process forward and get it actually ratified and put into force. Many argue that the way forward is to have referendums in the Member States to let the people decide on whether they approve the treaty or not.

I think that is a bad idea. The truth is that people have no clue what they are voting on. It is safe to say that close to a 100% of those who would be voting have not, and will not, even read the treaty. The vote would thus not be based on substance but on ideological views far removed from the reality of what is happening. Why would you want people to decide on something they don't know anything about?

There is a good answer to that question. A referendum might be the only way to ensure some sort of a check on the powers of the national and EU governments. Absent a referendum, the politicians can decide on what is good for us and force us to accept it. What we get is a chance to kick them out in a few years at election time if we think they did a bad job which might not be sufficient.

The problem is, as I noted, that we are not competent to vote on it. I for one still haven't studied more than little bits of the darn thing, and don't feel like I could vote yes or no. Given these circumstances, I trust the people I have voted for to make this decision for me. Whether I made the right decision in voting for them, time will tell.

There is of course a simple solution to this bloggers dilemma. Do not vote. However to state that because one does not feel competent to vote thus nobody should do so is egotism on stilts. It is akin to listening to a plutocrat calling for higher taxes for everybody. Nobody stops said plutocrat from putting a greater proportion of their cash into the Treasury, but to call for all to be penalised is arrogance.

My own favourite version of this mindset is the example of Tim Wetherspoon who lobbied for ages to introduce the smoking ban in pubs. I remember hearing him going on about on the Today programme and when it was pointed out that as the owner of well over 100 pubs he could introduce a ban himself he replied along the lines of, "If I do that unilaterally, then I will lose custom to those who do not introduce a similar ban. That is why the ban has to be across the board". Admittedly they did introduce the ban early, but only after the legilstion was already on its way.

It is all part of the same selfish, self important attitude that so disfigures our society. That which I am must necessarily be right and others must be forced to do as I do.

Not in a pluralistic democratic society sunshine, but there again, we are not in a pluralistic democratic society.

Back to Duff

On aspect of the Andrw Duff's speech on Monday that I missed and has now been brought to my attention is this little nugget.

The Charter is to be solemnly proclaimed on 12th December, a day before the Treaty is signed. If the latter can be justified and passed, it will be durable for years to come. Parliament has been granted powers to propose further reform of the treaty, and there is a hope to include those things that were left out.

Which is a little worrying given the normal stuff that the parliament keeps on demanding.

He should know

Lib/Dem Andrew Duff MEP was speaking to the Universitie Foundation in Brussels on Monday night on his favourite subject, the European Constitution. As he is one of the Parliament's three representatives to the IGC he really should know what is going on, so it is interesting to note what he has to say about things, merely as straws in the wind and as illustrations.

On the IGC leading to the Constitutional Reform Treaty itself he said,
"it was a giant exercise to make obscure what has previously been straightforward. Certain issues were suppressed. We need to remind ourselves that the greater part of the 2004 treaty has been satisfactorily salvaged, and will find itself in the amended treaty, and in recalling that the greater part of the treaty has been salvaged, it exposes the features agreed to greater public scrutiny. "
This is unusual for a europhile British politician, much more like the attitudes that one gets over here. Indeed it is honest.
He continued

"We always appreciated that the 2004 treaty was not perfect, but it was also clear that the agreement that we signed but failed to seal was the optimum that could be agreed at this time.

And what was true then is true to-day, when the mood has become more Eurosceptic in certain important places."

Those important places being, France, Holland and the UK.

He then turned to Britain's opt outs, particualrly the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

The IGC crafted extremely complex protocols so the Brits can exercise privileges, but they can only exercise them according to the terms set and schedules agreed by the Council and Commission. A greater problem survives over the Charter (of fundamental human rights) because in seeking to block the "justiceability" of it, the fear is that the opt-out will poison the legal system of everyone else. Everyone has signed up to recognising the common position of the member states, but the Brits say, "no we don't - only as it is recognised in national law."
What I suspect is that the opt-outs on the charter will prove to be juducually flawed and will crumble.

Belgium scuppers Constitution? Sadly hoping won't make it happen

Dan Hannan yesterday flags up an idea that was first floated by Chris Booker and has since been taken up by the Devil's Kitchen. That is that the Constitutional Crisis in Belgium may well have a significant impact upon the ability of the EU to get its Constitution.
As Dan puts it,

"the prolonged absence of a Belgian Prime Minister is beginning to cause concern around the EU. If the crisis is still unresolved by 13 December, there will be no one with the authority to sign the Lisbon Treaty"

The premise is that with only a caretaker Government, the Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt will not be constitutionally allowed to sign the Treaty in December if the Belgians have not by then sorted out their little local difficulty.

However following a correspondence with one of Belgium's leading Constitutional lawyers I must, sadly pour cold water on the idea. This is despite comments made in the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, repeated on EU Observer.
His argument goes something like this,

"I have doubts that anything can be done at this stage. Formally, the prime Minister has the authority to sign any treaty. Signing is a matter for the Executive, not for the Belgian parliament".

I repeated my question as to the caretaker status of the PM and whether this had any importance,

"There is some misunderstanding as to the status of a caretaker government:
- as long as the new parliament is not assembled, there is a convention that they can do very few things.
- however, once the parliament is in session again, the government can do more.
I agree that according to tradition, the outgoing government should not sign the Treaty, but there is no legal sanction against doing so. Or rather; the only body who can sanction is Parliament (by not ratifying).

It is true that there are some divergences of opinion on this matter between constitutionalists. But I don't give an action for annulment of the signing (by the Administrative Court) a chance: they will say that the signature itself does not make the Treaty valid in the internal order, and that only the ratification can be attacked (namely before the Constitutional Court)".

Though I have long hoped for the delicious irony that Belgium might cause mayhem by default, I have also believed that a little thing like due process would not stop them. After all 'no' votes didn't.

There again there is the small factor of requiring the Flanders Parliament to ratify the Treaty. That looks to me like one very big stick in their armoury in their disagreements with the Belgian Federal State.

What would the EU do with one of these?

For those concentrating bug-eyed on the goings-on in Lisbon and Gordo's acquiescence in the overturn of our nation, I would like to let you into a secret. The Treaty has already been signed. Yes, today in Holland, EU countries signed the Treaty.

Not the constitutional "Reform" Treaty, but the Treaty establishing the Euro Gendarmerie Force (or EUROGENDFOR, to use its attractive and expressive name).

And what the hell is that I hear you ask. Only the creation of a EU paramilitary police force, nothing to worry about. What is more, I am prepared to bet that not one of the hundreds of British press types in Lisbon to cover the summit will mention it in their breathless copy for tomorrow.

So what is this Treaty? Let's have a look at Article 1:

The object of this Treaty is to establish a European Gendarmerie Force, which shall be operational, pre-organised, robust, and rapidly deployable, exclusively comprising elements of police forces with military status of the Parties, in order to perform all police tasks within the scope of crisis management operations.

Oh goody I feel so warm inside.

So what is it going to do? I know let's look at Article 4:

Missions and tasks

1. In accordance with the mandate of each operation and operating independently or jointly with other forces, EUROGENDFOR must be capable of covering the full spectrum of police missions, through substitution or strengthening, during all the phases of a crisis management operation.

2. EGF Forces can be placed either under civilian authority or under military command.

3. EUROGENDFOR may be used for:

a. performing security and public order missions;
b. monitoring, advising, mentoring and supervising local police in their day-to-day work, including criminal investigation work;
c. conducting public surveillance, traffic regulations, border policing and general intelligence work;
d. performing criminal investigation work, including detecting offences, tracing offenders and transferring them to the appropriate judicial authorities;
e. protecting people and property and keeping order in the event of public disturbances;
f. training police officers as regards international standards;
g. training instructors, particularly through co-operation programmes.

Now I don't want to be alarmist about this, after all only five countries have so far signed up. What is more, under article 42:

Any EU Member State possessing a police force with military status may apply to CIMIN for accession to this Treaty. After receiving the approval of the Parties, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 5, subparagraph a., CIMIN shall notify the applicant State of the Parties' decision.(CMIN being its management).

So that's alright then we are safe. What's that, the fact that we do not have a paramilitary police force precludes UK involvement in this (though if you have been to an airport recently you might beg to differ)? But hold on, what's that in Article 44:

Partner Status

1. EU Member States and EU candidate countries that have a force with military status and some police skills may apply for Partner Status.

2. CIMIN shall define the specific rights and obligations of the partners.

Happily the Portuguese Minister, Rui Pereira who announced this today described it as:

...an essential step to endow the EU with a joint police tool designed to respond to crisis scenarios. Eurogendfor should be used in non-stabilised and added-risk environments.

Though one might say that this is good intergovenmentalism, comments like this seem to suggest that there is more to it than that. Then think how the Treaty of Prum came into force. First blocked by Council, then forced through after it had been signed by a number of member states.

We are told that this is to help out in global trouble spots, somewhere after the troops have left, but before fully civilian police can enter safely. Think Bosnia.

Then have a look at this page. The photos here were taken when the then French Defence Minister visited EUROGENDFOR. They put on a show for her and employed some of their staff to be the enemy. Were they pretending to be Jihadists a la Darfur? No. Were they Indonesians in East Timor? Nope. They were pretending to be Breton nationalists.

Lovely!

So the Minister watched a special show where Dutch and Spanish paramilitary police beat up French protesters. How she clapped.

Hague speaks with forked tongue

So William Hague makes his great conference speech. He bangs the drum for a referendum, he accuses Brown of deception. All good stuff
But then goes on to do the same thing himself.

"We will go further: the next Conservative Government will end the 1972 European Communities Act, so that if any future government agrees any treaty that transfers further competences from Britain to the EU a national referendum before it could be ratified would be required by law."

Please note that he says "any treaty" not any revision of the Treaty. He knows about Article 33, the simplified revision treaty. How can I say that, because here he is in the Daily Mail of the 2nd August a brief two months ago saying, about the so called 'ratchet clause'

"All vetoes other than over defence can be abolished by agreements between European governments in future, without having to go through the whole process of negotiating a fresh treaty or ratifying that in any formal way"

So why is he saying something that he knows is not the constitutional guarantee that those in the hall, and those who will read the papers tomorrow believe it to be.

Let it be said once and for all, there will be no need of a new EU Treaty after this one. There is the procedure in place to ensure that they will never have to put everything on the line again. In the future it will be piecemeal, and this promise to amend the European Communities Act, though good in its own way does not do what he suggests. Further amendments, which the government of the day support - with or without the support of the British people - will still go through Parliament under the current Westminster procedure and this safeguard is as much use as a phoning the local police in the event of a burglary.

Update

Seems like somebody liked the photomontage. Hague at Blackpool

Telegraph, where are your subs?

Heart in right place, mind somewhere else.

The Daily Telegraph is continuing its campaign to force a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. To this end it has commissioned a You Gov poll which tells it, to nobodies surprise that 2/3rds of the British public would like a say on their future. So much is hardly news. The detailed figures are interesting with a majority of both Labour (55%) and Lib Dems (59%) supporting the poll, but this is much the same as ever, the millions of those who vote Lib Dem seem to continue to fail to notice that they have a federalist party - not least in the South West.

However I digress, the paper informs us that the PM will, "will head to Brussels on Oct 18 to agree the treaty, ahead of the formal signing in December".

Well he will be bloody bored when he gets there. The meeting is taking place in Lisbon, what with this being the Portuguese presidency and all. What is more the Telegraph will have at least two if not more journalists, who have already booked their flights. What is going on?

Graham Watson, absentee landlord

Shambling into the stocks on the Parish Referendum issue comes Graham Watson, the expensively coiffured leader of the European Liberal Group, the ALDE - Motto "Cheap Opinions piled high" and Lib Dem MEP for the South West.

Not known for his activities in his constituency, neither his blog, (and if that is a blog then I am a Dutchman) nor his forward diary suggest any hands on local activity - just a mention that he went to Somerset for a weekend after the holidays, he has weighed into the Parish Referendum affair with a classic press release,

CARP in UKIP Clothing: MEP demands informed debate on Europe
2.09.00pm BST (GMT +0100) Wed 26th Sep 2007
Commenting on results this week from a poll in East Stoke, Dorset on whether Gordon Brown should call a referendum on the EU's Reform Treaty, local MEP Graham Watson has said:

"Let's have some debate about this", argues Graham Watson MEP
"I think it's a shame that a parish referendum in East Stoke has been hijacked by UKIP and its close affiliates, CARP (Campaign Alliance for Referendums in Parishes). I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, but what this needs is informed public debate, not populist publicity stunts such as this. I very much doubt that this referendum was based on the wording of the Reform Treaty. So let's have some debate about this. Fifteen further parishes across the South West have requested a parish referendum on the issue; I would welcome the opportunity of talking to them about this."

Where to start?
"Results this week" No Graham, if you read the papers or took and interest in your constituency you would realise that the vote took place last week.

"I think it's a shame that a parish referendum in East Stoke has been hijacked by UKIP and its close affiliates, CARP" Errr, how can the organisers of the poll be accused of hijacking it. That is akin to suggesting that a baker is hijacking the bread in his own bakery. CARP organised the poll, it did not hijack it.

"I understand the strength of feeling on this issue" But, despite being aware that the vast majority of the people of the South Western Counties are in favour of a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, you set your face against it.

"what this needs is informed public debate", the normal weasel words that translate not as debate, but monologue, only supporters are informed.

"I very much doubt that this referendum was based on the wording of the Reform Treaty", it would be easy to pick up the phone and ask the organisers of the poll if they have read the proposed treaty. You know what, I have, and surprise sup rise, they have read the proposals. What is more the poll does not ask for the treaty to be rejected, what it asks is for the Treaty to be voted upon by the British public. During the period leading up to a referendum I would expect, just like in Holland and France before hand there would be massive public debate on the relative merits of the Treaty. So Graham, don't shoot straw dogs.

"let's have some debate about this", Eh? Debate about what Graham, about whether people should have a direct say in the governance of their country?

"Fifteen further parishes across the South West have requested a parish referendum on the issue" Suggesting does it not, that there is a groundswell of public opinion wishing to be allowed to have a say?

"I would welcome the opportunity of talking to them about this", Great stuff, why not go along to the next parish that holds a poll and on the night before hold a debate about whether people should be allowed a referendum. I understand that an invitation is on its way. I think it is going to be down in the pointy bit of Cornwall. They are hospitable people down there and I am certain they will make you welcome.

Rather wonderfully in the light of his opposition to a referendum on the Treaty his previous press release is this,
"The Case for Global Democracy: Cross Party Coalition of MEPs calls for a UN Parliamentary Assembly"

So for Graham it appears that having laws made by the likes of Mugabe is a good thing, but having laws made by his own country is a bad one. Truly, you couldn't make it up.

Aside,
The photo is from the European Research Forum at London Metropolitan University. It is titled, "Lord Graham Watson MEP, Leader of the Liberal Group Brendan Donnelly, Director of the Federal Trust Professor Stephen Haseler, Director of the ERF" Watson being on the left.
It seems that the ERF needs to get its own research in order, I am pretty sure that Mr Watson has not been raised to the ermine.

Do we have the energy for this?

Following Tom Wise's intervention in the Usmanov affair I would like to look more closely at the debate in which the affair was flagged up, that of the planned Common European Foreign Energy Policy.

Essentially this means having a European Energy Minister operating at one level below the new European Foreign Minister - High Representative or whatever opaque name they are giving it this week. It also of course means dining with the Russians, which is where our friend Mr Usmanov comes in.

Europe is beginning to realise that the continent wide dash for gas puts its collective balls in a vice of Mr Putin's making. Take a look at some of the facts. (Mostly culled from an article in EUWatch by Nigel Farage in January)

In Venezuela Chavez is in effect nationalising the energy supply, mainly as a way to have a go at the US.

"Behind the scenes, however, we see Russian hands at play. Russia is arming Venezuela with state of the art weapons systems, and it is unlikely that Chavez’s confrontational anti-American speech at the UN in September 2005 would have happened had he not just received an assurance of some $3 billion of arms supplies. This might be interpreted as an intention to provoke a conflict in the region: This being standard Russian policy where energy resources are concerned, consider the endless civil war in the Caucasus. This is less about fighting terrorism or propping up particular regimes, than it is about deterring foreign investment".

Then think about Darfur, the current cause celebre of the caring classes.

"Russia has been supplying arms in defiance of a UN embargo3. More than 200,000
people have been killed in a four year civil war, and the BBC is reporting Russian attack helicopters on the tarmac at Nyala air base, and the involvement of Russian military aircraft in bombing raids in Darfur".
"Sudan is also oil-rich, with most of the reserves in the south of the country. The fact that Southern Sudan is likely to declare autonomy in four years time, taking the oil with it, might explain the Russian interference".

Elsewhere, Moscow used ‘environmental issues’ to threaten, and then take over the Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project.
But the EU is going ahead with plans to give Russia a greater say in the environmental management of the Baltic. Could it be that Putin is more interested in the pipelines than his in fish?

The EU boasts that they have other sources of gas than Russia, holding up Algeria as an example of an alternative supplier.
But look closer there already exists a ‘memorandum of understanding’ between Russia’s Gazprom, and the Algerian state controlled gas firm Sonatrach. Indeed, during the dispute between Georgia and Gazprom which we now know to have been directed by Usmanov over price increases in January of last year, Moscow put pressure on the Algerians not to supply gas to the Georgians.

Russia has enacted legislation to freeze out foreign investment on the one hand, and uses Gazprom et al to buy up western energy companies on the other.

And yet they waffle on about renewables, windmills and the like, while trying to convince us that they should be in control of our strategic energy supply. As Lee Rotherham points out for the Bruges Group, the Constitutional Treaty, which will introduce the Energy Minister also has this piece of legerdemain, in Article 176a,

"1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market
and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union
policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market; (This will hand Brussels the
power to decide, where and how the oil and gas are sold)

(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union, and (This could mean that the UK must supply energy to another member-state if they are having problems with their network)

(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and
renewable forms of energy; (This will make the debate in Britain about how energyis produced irrelevant because Brussels will be making those decisions)

(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks. (This will give the EU a key role as the system guarantor and thus threatening British control over the North Sea reserves)"

Oh yes and in Article 100(1), we find that the EU gives itself the power to co-opt the North Sea in times of energy crisis.

Hope you are all feeling warm and comfortable in your centrally heated homes.

East Stoking the flames of popular discontent

So the good parishioners of the tiny village of East Stoke have done their duty and delivered a small but magnified message to the powers that be.

In a Parish Poll that has been widely trawled through the press,
Mail,
Telegraph,
Times
Evening Standard,
Sun,
BBC
etc

the parishioners voted 90% to 10% to call for a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. I always said that Dorset was the true beating heart of our country.