Fisking Robin

Yesterday I said that I could have spent a couple of hours fisking Robin Cooks piece in the Guardian. Well, I did not do it, but this man did.

The Wisdom of Robin Cook

I could spend a couple of hours fisking this pile of stinking poo, but I just want to bring out one argument which will be used time and time again and what I think our response should be to it.

A focus of the Mail assault has been the provision that European law takes primacy over domestic legislation, but that has been the rule ever since we joined in 1975. If Britain votes no on those grounds we are rejecting the very basis on which we became members

Robin, dear, our leaders lied to us in 1975 telling us that joining would not mean loss of sovereignty. Ever since they have tried to pretend that the EU is little more than a trading zone. This is our first chance to give our opinion on the reality of the EU not the lie sold to us by Heath. On that basis all previous treaties are up for discussion, not just this one. Besides as Eurosceptics our biggest problem with the EU by far is the ratchet effect. We may all have been raving Euro looneys in 1975. We might have wished to create a Euro Commune of caring sharing multicultural fabness. Since then we may have changed our mind. Its our right to do so. We reject totally any political process that is not reversible and the EU is most definitely a one way street. Oh and by the way, using a constitution to cement a particular world view is illegitimate and undemocratic. I hope we can spoil your wonderful European future for you. See you in 2006.

Mr Blair Comfortable with Treaty

So here we have it.

Mr Blair's spokesman said Britain was playing a leading role in Europe's eastward expansion and was comfortable with the treaty.

He quite obviously has not read it or he is a total traitor. Take your pick.

Obviously we weren't here in 1957, and we've been playing catch-up ever since, he said.

One of the most vacous arguments that is constantly used. We are out of the loop because we joined late. There was a reason we missed out in 1957, unfortunately later leaders were not made of such sensible stuff.

They Make Traitors Lords Nowadays

From the Guardian

Britain's two most articulate and travelled pro-Europeans, Chris Patten and Neil Kinnock, are to enter the House of Lords, giving them an ideal platform to mount the case for the new European constitution and later the euro.

But its all in a good cause so we should be happy. This way, we pay their wages whilst they campaign for the abolition of our country. Maybe they could be given radio programmes to convince us of the EU arguments. As stage names Lord Haw Haw has a certain ring. Its not often you hear Neil Kinnock being called articulate, wind bag is the usual.

An Enabling Act

In the Telegraph Charles Moore gives his reaction to the signing of the constitution.

The key point about the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not so much what it says, as how it will be implemented. It will give the European Court a much wider basis for making decisions. Until recently, most European decisions have been economic. Now they will be cultural. This is about what sort of lives we should lead, and it gives legal authority to European judges and bureaucrats to tell us how to lead them. Since the European Court is staffed only by judges who believe in ever-closer European integration, it will make its decisions in that light. The constitution is the sharia of the Euro-enthusiasts.

As we Euro Sceptics have been saying for a long time, the contents of the treaties are not as important as the way in which they are used. The constitution, especially the charter of fundamental rights is nothing more than an enabling act. The powers that be will use is to destroy anything we have left of our own nation and anything other than their socialist view of the world.

A message to Tony Blair

As you pose for photos on this day which the BBC will constantly refer to as historic, the people of the UK, whom you legally and by tradition represent, may wish you to ponder on the gravity of what you are doing. Our traditions, our culture, our politics have through decades and centuries, evolved and changed at a pace not chosen by individuals, but by the strength of the ideas that underlie our way of life. Many leaders believed that by strength of purpose, they could change our nation. Many failed, whilst those we now honour as great were those who understood what the great British people were and what mattered to them. Leaders, enable the people to achieve what they themselves want. They do not try to force unnecessary change on an unwilling populace. For reasons, which no Pro EU politician has ever managed to explain, today you will attempt to sign away our history, our culture, our country. The document you sign today may, in your opinion, add relatively little to the multitude of powers that enables the EU to change every aspect of our lives. It represents however, a watershed, an official recognition of the surrender of our right to choose our own way of life. For this, the British people will never forgive you. We all know which way the referendum will go. This summit, is little more than cheap political opportunism on your part, something so much easier than causing a fuss. Unfortunately for you however it reveals your true belief. That far from representing us, you see yourself as the owner of that which cannot be bought nor given away. Our nation has fought a thousand year battle, so that the people can claim the sovereignty of this country for themselves. This is something that neither you nor any other person has the right give away, dilute or pool in anyway. We the people own this nation, our leaders are expendable, they have a limited shelf life, but this nation will continue to exist long after Tony Blair has been forgotten.

Crucial vote on new Commission team postponed

The saga of the controversial new commissioners continues.

A crucial vote today by the European Parliament on the new team of European Commissioners has been postponed after it became clear that a majority in favour of the Commission was not likely to be reached. Incoming Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso asked for the vote to be delayed so that he can reshuffle the portfolio in his team.

So thats one for the politically correct view and one against the idea that people should be free to have their own ideas. The funny thing is that they are claiming to be acting on behalf of the citizens.

Eurosceptic MEPs group together against Constitution

A group of eurosceptic MEPs have launched an alliance against the European Constitution just three days before the document is due to be signed by EU leaders. Called 'The Referendum Group', it crosses the political spectrum in the European Parliament and is expected to comprise up to 100 MEPs.

Many of them seem to have rather different reasons to dislike the EU than I do, but who cares, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We wish them all the luck in the world from the Serfs of Europe.

Kilroy-Silk leaves UKIP in turmoil

The UK Independence Party was in disarray last night after Robert Kilroy-Silk resigned from its group of Euro-MPs in a bitter dispute over his refusal to abandon his attempt to become the party's leader. Less than a month after declaring that UKIP's objective should be to "kill" the Conservative Party, Mr Kilroy-Silk unexpectedly quit the group before it considered moves to suspend him.

Maybe the party can focus its efforts on attacking the EU and its satanic works instead of infighting. If they can move the subject on from the back of fridges, maybe we can see a much bigger discussion on the EU and Britains place in it.

No more control of Immigration

The Government quietly acquiesced in moves to abolish Britain's veto over immigration and asylum yesterday.

I know it was a total mess under our own governments control, but at least Mr Blunkett is only a temporary problem. Once the EU takes control, we will be longing for the happy days when Roof Tilers had one leg, but there will be no escape. What is given can never be taken back.

Lisbon Agenda a big failure

The outgoing President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, has described the EU's strategy to become the world's most competitive knowledge based eonomy by 2010 as a big failure. Mr Prodi said that a widespread use of the national veto had allowed Member States to block progress, despite prompting by the European Commission.

Prodi is a key supporter of the European Social model, the main reason that Europe is so uncompetitive. What can he mean by these statements.

You can t have unanimity in all economic areas, or if you do, you must accept the failure of Lisbon, he said. Lisbon is a big failure. To support his conclusion, Mr Prodi highlighted the failure to agree on a workable Community Patent after almost 15 years of discussion as symptomatic of the problem.

So the failure of the Lisbon Agenda is the fault of not enough integration. If only we would give up control of our economies to higher beings in Brussels, all would be well. A pan European patent would be nice, but it is hardly the thing that is holding back innovation in Europe. As I quoted yesterday, creativity and change can only come from diversity. The harmonization of the EU is the biggest barrier to innovation. But as we have come to expect from Eurocrats, the answer is more integration, now what was the question.

A rigged dialogue with society

Eursoc beat me to it, but it is a story that is well worth repeating. According to the economist, the EU has been lavishly funding NGO’s whose sole purpose is to spread the word.

THE European Commission knows it has an image problem. To try to fix things, it is creating the new post of commissioner in charge of communications. Margot Wallstrom, previously responsible for the environment, promises that one of her first actions in office will be to hold brainstorming sessions with civil society. Talking to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that purport to represent civil society is a proxy for the commissions talking to ordinary Europeans. But there is something odd about this dialogue. Many of the NGOs that Brussels likes to consult are directly financed by the commission itself.

The convention on the future of Europe, in place of actually inviting the public to comment on the constitution, asked some of these self same NGOs to speak on behalf of the public.

Five NGOs on this working group were invited to deliver this message directly to the convention. But all five, the Young European Federalists, the Federalist Voice, the Active Citizenship Network, the European Network Against Racism and the Polish NGO Office in Brussels are financed, directly or through EU funded members, by the commission itself.

And how big pray tell is this largesse?

Romano Prodi, the commissions outgoing president, boasted in a discussion paper in 2000 that over Euro 1,000m a year is allocated to NGO projects directly by the commission. Most of this money goes to organisations that are not directly political: over Euro 400m was allocated to humanitarian aid for example. But Mr Prodi also reckoned that Euro 50m went to educational NGOs and Euro 70m to social NGOs.

So every year, vast amounts of our money are handed out by the EU to bodies whose only job is to promote the EU. This is of course in addition to the requirement that any project funded by EU money must advertise the fact, despite the money being ours anyway. Quite a racket.

The spectacle of organisations that receive EU money using their money to campaign for more EU money is only one example of this looking-glass world. It is a world in which so called NGOs are actually dependent on government for cash; and one in which the European Commission, itself directly financed by Europe's national governments, finances autonomous organisations that campaign for more power and money to be handed to the commission itself.

So we are paying to be advertised to whether we like it or not. How rigged do you think the referendum campaign is going to be.

Free Trade

I critisised the EU for two faced behaviour in its trading policies but that was before I saw this: Another EU disgrace

On the same day that an unusually-bold UN Security Council called on Syria to comply with a resolution demanding withdrawal of its forces in Lebanon, the European Union agreed with the Syrian government to establish a free-trade zone.

Syria is a country where all the norms of freedom and rights are ignored, where terrorism is regarded as a normal part of foriegn policy and which is still occupying Lebanon. (Shouts of imperialist anyone) I believe in totally unfettered trade, so the idea of a free trade agreement with Syria is not in itself a bad thing. The screaming hypocrisy is a different matter however.

EU to reward treaties with tariffs

The EU cares nothing for the developing world, that much is clear from its addiction to CAP. However, it likes to show an image of taking the moral high road. Thus we have this horrendous idea:

Developing countries that implement the Kyoto protocol and other international treaties on human rights, labour standards and the environment will be rewarded with a lighter tariff burden, the European Commission announced yesterday. The conventions involved include those against forced labour, child labour, racial and sexual discrimination as well as an agreement defending workers' rights to organise themselves and bargain collectively.

Its not enough to spread neo-socialist ideas within the boundaries of the EU but other weaker countries must be forced down the same path as well. Of course the most important thing is to export damaging trade union policies. So who are the lucky candidates and what can they gain:

Countries will receive duty-free access for about 7,200 product lines, including many sensitive products such as agricultural goods. The normal preference scheme, in contrast, only gives such access to 40 per cent of this list of goods. The new rule is directed only at smaller countries with vulnerable and poorly diversified economies.

So in exchange for changing your laws to suit Europe, the poorest nations in the world will receive access to the EU markets. These are the very countries which need to be given unilateral access to our markets, and without which their chances of development are extremely slim. Meeting the EU’s requirements will prove close to impossible and counter productive for these countries. Underlying all of this is a determination not to give full access to the EU markets, whilst pretending that the opportunity exists.

Thought for the week

What has made the European family of nations an improving instead of stationary portion of mankind. Not any superior excellence in them, which, when it exists, exists as the effect not as the cause, but their remarkable diversity of charachter and culture. Individuals, classes, nations have been extremely unlike one another, they have struck out a great variety of paths each leading to to something valuable and although at every period those who have travelled on different paths have been intolerant of one another, and each would have thought it an excellent thing if all the rest could have been compelled to travel his road, their attempts to thwart each others development have rarely had any permanent success, and each has in time endured to recieve the good that the others have offered. Europe is in my judgement wholely indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many sided development.

On Liberty J.S. Mill

In a week when our Prime Minister wishes to sign a document that sets in stone, a single path for Europe, it is a good time to reflect on the value and true meaning of diversity.

March 2006 for referendum on European constitution

The date has been set for the referendum. It is to be March 2006. We have 18 months to make sure we convince the public to vote no.

Britain and Europe, unforgettable past, unavoidable future

The Guardian yesterday published a lecture by Philip Stevens on Britain and Europe. It is full of the kind of irrelevant general commentary we come to expect from Nation surrendering Europhiles. A few examples are as follows.

The history of the past 50 years weighs just as heavily on the present. Coming to terms with what is now known as the European Union demanded that Britain also come to terms with the retreat from past glory. Political leaders have shunned the challenge.

Its all the fault of political leaders past and present for not being as clever as our correspondent.

Dean Acheson is often quoted for his famous remark about Britains search for a post imperial role.

Only the Foreign Office is looking for a post imperial role. The rest of us are getting on with our lives mostly happy with the way things are. Jobs and Hospitals are actually far more important.

France and Germany saw the creation of the Iron and Steel Community as vital, in Jean Monnets words, to exorcise the past. Britain was determined to cling on to its history.

Unlike some of our European cousins, our past is worth clinging to. Germany had a need to exorcise the past, we did not. Its almost as if he is saying that the project is difficult but we deserve it. It is our sackcloth and ashes.

Our political culture does not help. Anyone who has spent time watching our politicians brawling across the House of Commons despatch box will know what I mean. At Westminster, politics is combat - preferably mortal. There are winners and losers; compromise represents dishonourable defeat. Ministers take the same instincts to Brussels. Our European partners are comfortable with the politics of give-and-take.

That Mr Stevens is democracy. In Britain we expect our political representatives to fight to the death for what they believe in, for what we put them in parliament to do. The European consensus far from being a gentlemanly way to conduct business is the unchecked arrogance of a political elite. We alone have a right to decide, the people are not important. If power is more important than policy, compromise is easy.

But it is still quite hard to find in the rest of Whitehall any real sense that Europe is an opportunity rather than a threat. In France, European policy is an extension of domestic policy. In Britain, it often seems at very best a necessary interference.

In what sense exactly is it an opportunity. Just repeating this several times will not make it true. Besides it is worse than a necessary interference it is a totally unnecessary one. The European Union and its problems is in no way unavoidable, no matter what the title says and the lecture gives absolutely not one concrete reason why we should be a part of it. Meaningless cliche is as far as it goes. Why can they never construct a decent argument in favour of the EU. Maybe it does not exist.

The Devil is in the Details

Viva Latvia According to Straight Banana, the Latvians may refuse to sign the constitution next week. The reason for their reticence. Perhaps they wish not to become part of a Union of European Socialist Republics so soon after leaving its predecessor. Maybe they disagree about the amount of power than a small member like themselves will have. Wrong They do not like the spelling of the word Euro. What is it with politicians. We are discussing the creation of an unaccountable super state and they are worried about details like this. Have any of them actually reads the thing.

Court of Human Rights decisions not binding, says German court

We constantly wail about loss of sovereignty to multilateral institutions, but one of our European Neighbours has got the right idea.

A landmark decision on hierarchy in European law has been taken by the German Constitutional court. The Court on Thursday (14 October) found that it is not obliged to hold to the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. According to Germany's Constitutional court, rulings by the Strasbourg court are "interpreting aids" which have to be taken into account but not strictly followed if they contradict German constitutional law.

Now that sounds like a strategy we could take. The problem is after 7 years of Tony Blair, we do not have a constitution left.

Kilroy-Silk faces moves to force him out of UKIP

From the Telegraph

Formal moves to force Robert Kilroy-Silk to quit the UK Independence Party could begin next week after Roger Knapman, the party leader, accused him of seeking to become "a martyr".

When the UKIP did so well in the Euro elections, I thought that we could at last see a good debate on the EU and whether Britain had a future in it. They broke the taboo in a big way and put an independent future on the table for discussion. Since then I have read not a single word about their plans for the UK and pages about scandal and misshaps. Is this some sort of conspiracy or is it incompetence on a major scale.

Greens to vote against new Commission

This was a couple of days back but it warrants a comment:

The European Parliament's Greens have said that they will reject the Commission as a whole during a key vote next week.

From their political standpoint I can understand why they feel this way. But there is a twist in the tail.

The Greens also say that they will try and use anti-discrimination articles in the new EU constitution to oppose some members, such as Mr Buttiglione.

Get that, they want to use articles from a constitution that has not been agreed on, that would be an interesting precedent would it not. From now one EU law depends upon draft unsigned treaties. In addition they want to use anti discrimination articles to discriminate against someone. Pinch me someone this can not be real. EUrealist emphasised the point that our very our Peter Mandelson, who has been sacked for corruption twice from the British government, gets the nod from the Greens without a murmur.

English Constitutional Convention

So busy has it been in its headlong rush into the abolition of England as a political entity, and so eager to embrace unwanted regionalisation, that the UK Government actually forgot to consult the English nation on this major constitutional change. A slip of the mind we're sure. Not so the Campaign for an English Parliament. Today (20th October 2004) sees the launch of the English Constitutional Convention at the House of Commons.

www.englishconstitutionalconvention.com A discussion of the English Constitution does seem somewhat necessary at the moment.

Death Penalty

Without wishing to discuss the pros and cons of the ultimate punishment, I am intrigued by these two items in the current issue of Europa Newsletter.

On the occasion of the second World Day Against the Death Penalty, the EU called on all countries that still permit the death penalty to put an end to executions and to abolish the death penalty. The EU welcomed the global trend towards abolition and the fact that the international community has excluded the use of the death penalty in establishing international tribunals and the International Criminal Court, which are competent for the most heinous crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity.

Its interesting that one should get so happy about making sure that a future Osama or Saddam is not executed, but it is consistent. This however is bizarre.

EU Foreign Ministers agreed to end sanctions against Libya. However, concerns remain about the human rights situation in Libya and notably about the fact that Libya has not yet abolished the death penalty.

Most Libyans have about as much chance of being strung up as I have of becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet all Libyans live under an illiberal regime, where the rule of law and property rights are absent. The country is run by an all powerful dictator, for whom the citizens are nothing more than pawns. And in all of this, our esteemed leaders choose to focus on an issue that for most Libyans is probably not even an issue. What a strange set of priorities

Constitutional Titbit - 2

What kind of economy do we want then:

The union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, highly competitive and aiming at full employment and social progress and with a high level of protection and improvement of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological progress.

So here it is. No matter how unsuccessful, no matter how much it leads to social dysfunction, no matter the cost, we will stick with the European Social model forever. Of course, no mention of the economy could be made without dragging up the environment, otherwise those evil capitalists will destroy it. Without the constitution the EU was the biggest cheerleader for the useless and expensive Kyoto. With a constitutional need to protect the environment I hate to think how much further they would go. Promoting science and technology. No please do not laugh, it really says that. Try cracking down on greenie and animal rights terrorists and lift the unscientific ban on GM crops. In addition, do what the USA did with Silicon Valley. Get the hell out of the way. Can you imagine at the height of the Internet boom, techies only working 48 hours a week.

Social Model not to Blame

It seems that I have been barking up the wrong tree concerning what is wrong with the economies of Europe. I blamed it on the social model that the EU Constitution is trying to set in stone, but apparently its all the fault of George Bush.

The workers council believes that GM bases decisions against Opel on political motivations. The relocation of the production of 100,000 Zafiras each year from the German plant in Bochum to the Polish Gleiwitz supposedly has political reasons.

So Bushitler is forcing GM to sack German workers and replace them with Polish ones. Interesting though how expensive workers, excessive regulations and strong unions have had no effect.

Death to the Whistleblowers

Its been just days since Marta Andreasen was sacked for having the cheek to question fraud and corruption. Now in a ruling that shows us that none of us are safe another whistleblower is being stopped from investigating the corruption that pervades the corridors of Brussels.

The European Court has dispelled any residual doubt that it is little more than a politically motivated tool of the European Commission and continues its slow but steady construction of the means to make investigative journalism impossible in Brussels by ruling that Belgian police could seize Hans-Martin Tillack's computers and records to identify his sources regarding reports on EU corruption.

So as usual, the focus is always on those whose actions undermine the project, not on those whose actions are immoral or illegal. Is this not exactly what happens in a communist revolution. Everything that may damage the revolution in the eyes of the people must be stopped at all costs. Now tell me that the UK has no other choice but to lash itself to this sinking rotten ship.

Ceterum censeo Consilium Europaeum esse delendam

I have no knowledge of Latin whatsoever, but I may have to make this my motto It means apparently: "And, therefore, I conclude that the European Union must be destroyed." From Tim Worstall who gives a couple of good reasons why this is so: 1) Human Rights 2) Common fisheries policy

Euro Champion

With credible champions of the Euro cause such as this, we have a real fight on our hands.

A forum focusing on European issues was tonight told that they must first focus on a united Ireland before contemplating a united Europe.

And who might be making such a statement.....

Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams told the European Social Forum at Southwark Cathedral in London that he wanted to see the international community cancel third world debt and promote peace, freedom, human rights, tolerance, justice and equality.

Yes you read that correctly, peace, freedom, human rights, tolerance, justice and equality from a man who has dedicated his life to the murder of those who do not share his goals. Lets start a campaign to make Mr Adams a spokeman for the EU constitution.

Demonstration planned against Bolkestein

The Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein is to be met with protests later today, 18 October, during a visit to Berlin. Demonstrators will protest against a planned directive from his department which would liberalise public services such as health and education. Opponents of the new law fear that it will cause a lowering of standards in these services across the EU.

If they could name one area which has seen lower levels of service after liberalisation they should mention it. The lack of market incentives in public services means that they are for the most part hugely inefficient and deliver what the provider, not the consumer wants. What opponents of the new law really fear is a dilution of the blackmail powers of the unions. Of course there was nothing stopping individual states from liberalising these sectors in the first place so the value of this idea is limited, but it is nice to see that some Eurocrats understand the power of markets.

Thought for the Week

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.

Frederic Bastiat THE LAW

Bastiat describes the purpose of the law with simplicity and force in his book the Law. It is a massive contrast to the modern view of law as a tool for social engineering. Here is one Frenchman who would be horrified by the EU and its acquis communautaire. For more on Bastiat go here.

Redwood comments spark Euro clash

Europe Minister Denis MacShane claims that the Tories are now on UKIP ground:

Mr Redwood has now crossed the Rubicon into UKIP territory. Conservative policy is now contemplating quitting the EU with the massive consequences that would have for trade, jobs, travel and Britain's standing in the world.

The consequences will indeed be massive: 1) Trade: We can have free trade with everyone 2) Jobs: Without the socialist stranglehold of EU legislation, the UK can produce more jobs than ever. 3) Travel: So they will ask us for visas now will they. Do you believe that. 4) Standing in the World: We can follow the national interest without worrying about what some Belgian non entity thinks.

Ankara should be wary of Brussels

Owen Matthews in the latest issue of the Spectator is trying to tell the Turks what I have been saying to them for years.

Despite the fact that most Turks equate entering the EU with winning the lottery, it will be a terrible thing for Turkey That Turkey will change the EU for the better is clear, the bigger the Union, the greater the centripetal forces within it, and the more difficult it will be to create a United States of Europe ruled from Brussels.

Hence the support for Turkeys membership from countries like the UK and other less federalist nations.

Countries like Iceland and Norway, which have chosen to stay on the fringes of the Union but not be in it, can reap great economic benefits. This is especially true of Turkey, which, unlike the above-mentioned countries, has the added competitive advantage of a huge, cheap labour market. Turkey has the best of both worlds, it is in Europes customs union, and can trade freely with the EU while remaining outside its constrictive practices such as the social chapter, the 48 hour week and the crushing raft of health and safety and environmental legislation which make it so expensive to do business inside Europe.

Turkey is a country where anything up to half of the economy exists in a twilight world where regulations and taxes do not exist. The addition of the burden of EU law to those larger companies which do not benefit from tax evasion will absolutely cripple them. The smaller companies will ignore the new regulations just as they do the existing ones. As it is these big companies that are driving the modernisation of the country, and it is here that the educated elite work, EU membership could potentially push Turkey back into the dark ages.

Turkey would do far better if it worked to cut down on its own corruption and bureaucracy (instead of importing Brussels’s), make foreign investment easier by scrapping regulation (instead of increasing it), and foster a functional banking sector. Turks, in their pride, have a horror of the kind of privileged relationship sort of membership that the German Christian Democrats leader Angela Merkel proposes, assuming it to be the synonym of second class citizenship. But they are wrong: associate membership is closer to Turkey’s fundamental interests.

Since 1997, Turkey has had a customs union with the EU, a one sided one that excludes textiles and agriculture, Turkeys two biggest sectors. Despite the obvious disadvantages, Turkeys exports to the EU have exploded in the years since. Productivity has risen, and companies have moved up the value chain. The coming of the EU stranglehold, will chase much of this new industry and opportunities away from Turkey to the far east or elsewhere. Turkey will then become trapped in poverty, unable to pull itself up and kept alive on EU welfare. Lets hope for the sake of the Turks that something gets in the way of them realising their dream.

European credentials.......

What do you make of this:

Commissioner-designate Peter Mandelson has once more tried to distance himself from Tony Blair, stating a second UN resolution authorising the use of force in Iraq could have meant a better situation now.

He goes on:

Who can doubt that the insurgency in Iraq today would be a lesser problem had a second resolution been agreed before the invasion and if the United Nations had been in the driving seat from the start.

Leave aside the fact that the murderers of the UN representative in Iraq are less than impressed by the sight of a blue helmet, the assumption behind this story is interesting. A politician, to have European Credentials must be against the US policy towards Iraq. Some how, making meaningless statements about situations that in hindsight never had a chance of becoming reality make you a good European. So in short, European Credentials equals to worthless gasbag. Ok I can live with that.

One Nation, Going Cheap

I remember the outrage from some quarters when Mrs T started privatising state owned money pits. Selling the family silver they called it, selling our heritage. Shocking. Dear Leader however, was planning to sell the entire country so say our sources at An Englishmans Castle. If Pension Snatcher Brown agreed to Euro membership he was allegedly willing to step down. Despite his strong personal belief that all our property is actually his, this move was too much even for the man who out pillaged the Vikings.

Should Tony shut up as well

Our Dear leader is tilting at a few windmills in Budapest.

Tony Blair demanded an end to the decades old Franco German domination of Europe yesterday as he called for the EU to forge a common agenda with the United States to solve the world's problems.

Some people never learn do they. An organisation that exists in the mind of its strongest supporters for the sole purpose of being a counter balance to the USA, is hardly likely to heed a call like this. Its like calling for Arsenal and Tottenham to work together for the good of London football. Its not going to happen.

Mr Blair also chose the Budapest meeting to demand that the EU modernise its economy and abandon its reliance on heavily regulated labour markets based on the post war social model.

I dont know how to break this to you Tony, but I have read the draft constitution and it seems to me that the post war social model has just been carved in stone. I would have been a little bit cleverer to have read the thing before you signed it.

Farewell to a Whistleblower

As we all knew it would, the end of the saga came with the sacking of the only decent person involved.

The European Commission decided today (13 October) to dismiss its former chief accountant Marta Andreasen. In her first comment to the press after receiving the information of her dismissal via the press she told the EUobserver: The Prodi Commission has been manipulated by a group of officials, the nomenklatura as the press once called them, who manages funds without control. She added: They want to continue to manage the funds without real control and that's why they wanted me out.

The reason for her sacking was

Ms Andreasen repeatedly and knowingly acted in disregard of her obligations.

Obligations to whom I wonder, her corrupt superiors or the tax payers of Europe? Still its nice to feel superior as a Brit, these things are all the fault of the shifty continental types. Whoops I forgot this:

The decision may be Mr Kinnock's last act before stepping down as the commissioner in charge of fighting fraud.

Nice to know that those sent to Brussels to represent us take their jobs so seriously. To think that this man came so close to becoming our Prime Minister. Would you buy a used Constitution from this man? Meanwhile

Officials linked to the disappearance of £3 million in slush funds are still on full salary more than two years later, though their conduct was described by fraud investigators as a vast enterprise of looting.

That seems fair does it not. After all whats 3 million compared to the vast waste of the CAP.

Private Club for France

Kimmo Kiljunen who was a Member of the European Convention drafting the European Constitution has these inestimable pearls of wisdom for us.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is, as the name says, an international treaty and legal in nature. It replaces all existing Founding Treaties with a new one and can only be abolished by agreement between all the parties concerned. Otherwise they will remain in force. So there is nothing to worry about. If Britain or Finland, for example, were to reject the Constitution, it would simply vanish. The whole project would come to a halt, and the efforts made would have been wasted. Life would go on as usual under the existing Founding Treaties. Is this really what would happen?

Let me see if I can guess what is coming next. No do not tell me I want to guess. Ok I give up.

But the Convention led by Giscard d'Estaing did allow for contingencies. At the end of the Constitution a declaration was attached stating: "If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending the Treaty establishing the Constitution, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council." This is abundantly clear. The UK might reject the Constitution but cannot prevent France and Germany from ratifying it.

So, forgive me if I misunderstood. Basically a document designed by a former French President will go into force if Britain rejects it or not if rejected by France. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If the opposing member state is a small one , or even eurosceptic Britain. It would be forced to draw conclusions: it would be looking at some sort of associate membership, observer status or, ultimately, withdrawal from the Union.

So the line of the Euro fanatic faced with almost certain annihilation in a referendum is, vote yes or we will throw you out. It is the only possible strategy they have. The weakness of this strategy is that the UK voters have the opportunity to call their bluff. We all know that we will probably have a second chance to make the RIGHT decision, so voting no is the lowest risk option. If they decide to throw us out and that scares us, we can always change our minds. If we vote yes, we will never know what other options might have been offered to us.

So, voters in France, in contrast to voters in Britain or small member states will be answering different questions in the referenda: the former will be deciding the fate of the Constitution, the latter will be deciding their own fate in the Union.

Only a dyed in the wool Euro Ostrich could fail to notice the stupidity in that comment. We constantly complain that the EU is France s private plaything and that there is nothing in it for us. In reply the answer we get is.... Whatever the UK says does not matter, the decision is France s alone to make.

Iceland - Much better off out

Britain, we are forever being told, is a small offshore island, far too puny to survive except as part of a larger European entity. Daniel Hannan in The Spectator, using Iceland as an example pulls this particular argument to shreds.

Iceland has few natural advantages: it is cold, treeless and, for much of the year, sunless. It has a population of 285,000 , roughly that of Croydon. Yet this sparse, chilly speck of tundra has just overtaken Norway to become the wealthiest place in Europe.

Funny how the wealthiest places in Europe seem to generally be independent.

When I first visited the island, it had just joined the European Economic Area. Eurocrats expected that this would simply be a transitional phase on the way to full EU membership, but Icelanders saw it differently. As far as they were concerned, the EEA gave them all the benefits of the single market with few of the associated costs.

Now doesn t that sound like something worth having, free trade without the Neo-Socialist trimmings.

Eurofanatics dismiss Iceland s prosperity as being based wholly on fisheries, and it is true that an ingenious quota system has turned Icelandic fish stocks into a massive renewable resource. But there is far more to it than that. Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy.

Funnily enough, ownership (sovereignty if you like) has allowed them to manage their fish stocks properly.

British federalists, of course, deny any connection. You can t compare us to Iceland, they say. Iceland has fish. Yes, and so would we but for the wretched Common Fisheries Policy. We are not like Norway, they continue. Norway has oil. What do they suppose all that black stuff coming out of our North Sea pipelines is? Then comes my particular favourite: Switzerland is a special case: look at all their banks. Look at the City of London, for heavens sake, which Brussels is doing its best to asphyxiate with its financial regulations.

So Britain which has Fish (or would have had were it not for the CFP) Oil (although the constitution wants to change that) and a banking & financial sector that makes Switzerland s look positively puny cannot be compared to countries which only have one of these sectors.

Most of the richest places in the world are bonsai states: Singapore, Brunei, Monaco, the Channel Islands. The EU s tragedy, of course, is that it is going in the opposite direction, accumulating more and more power at the centre.

And that in a nutshell is what lovers of liberty are against. Big government whether from Brussels or London, is inherently bad and as Big Government is the driving principle behind the EU, exit is the only option.

Another Guardian Classic

I'm sorry to keep banging on about Rocco, but the comments made in various circles do not fail to amuse me. For Example

Mr Buttiglione should not be required, as he he put it, to "prostitute his conscience". But nor should he take up this important post when his views run counter to those of millions of European citizens.

Is it possible to find anyone for any job when measured against these credentials? I'm sure I can find something to disagree with in every single one of them. How about, lets assume that 1% of European Union residents are rabid racists, about 4.5 million people. Does that mean that no-one who is friends with people of non European origin could be suitable? Well their views would run counter to those of millions of European citizens! Such an assumption is probably on the conservative side, judging by the waves of antisemitism rearing up across the continent. Sorry I forgot, the only citizens that count are the ones that read the Guardian, or its equivalent across Europe.

EU jet fuel tax delayed

From EUPolitix

An EU tax on jet fuel has been kicked into the long grass after international aviation talks in Montreal.

Good so we can travel freely for a couple more years yet.

EU capitals had wanted to keep an open door to taxes and charges in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Incoming EU transport chief Jacques Barrot indicated recently that the issue of a European kerosene tax could be re-examined. The French commissioner said the environmental impact of air transport and distortions in competition meant that there may be a case for a "low rate of tax on intra-community flights" not exposed to international competition.

The part of this that really caught my attention was - distortions in competition - a phrase which means this:

1. We tax land transport very heavily
2. We don't tax air transport (Although what are airport taxes?)
3. In order to level the playing field, we need to tax air travel more heavily

They live in a strange parallel universe where the answer to one mistake is to make another. This is the reason that harmonisation of taxes must be fought until the last breath.

Constitutional Titbit - 1

As the Draft Constitution is thick enough to warrant killing several trees to print one copy, I decided to make a small critisism each week about part of it. At this rate I'll complete it by 2020 or so. In general the constitution is written in such a way as to over time take ever more power to Brussels. For this purpose it is vague and meaningless in most areas.

The Unions Values The union is founded on the values of human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the member states in a society in which pluralism, non discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

This sounds like a shopping list of vague values which can be twisted to mean whatever you want it to at a later date. The beauty of the USA constitution is that the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are universal. These on the other hand are an attempt to cast social democracy in concrete. If equality is a constitutional value how can we ever escape the tyranny of the tax man. The welfare state will become an even greater millstone around our necks, ever more inefficient ever more expensive. The addition of non discrimination and tolerance will be used for such idiotic ventures as the latest insurance directive. Pure politically correct lunacy. The fact that these terms have been abused to the point that they are now meaningless, makes the opportunity for abuse greater. Looking at the controversy of the Catholic beliefs of Rocco Buttiglione shows where or dear leaders would take this clause. Whatever is wrong with the concept of the rule of law, where evryone is equal under the law no matter who they are.

So Surprise, they rejected him

So our masters in Brussels have decided that Rocco Buttiglione is not suited to the job of Justice Commissioner. They may well be right in their judgement, I know very little about him, but based on the reasons given, the concept of liberty really has become warped. BBC

"This is just the latest confirmation of the lack of credibility Italy is subject to in the European institutions because of choices made by Berlusconi," said former Industry Minister Pierluigi Bersani, a member of the Democrats of the Left.

So its all Berlusconi’s fault, according to … surprise, his political opponents.

Sergio Lo Giudice, president of the Italian gay rights group Arcigay, said the vote showed the EU's strong commitment to human rights, including those of gay people.

As a cynic, I could add that the commitment to human rights extends only to members of those groups deemed “minority” by our betters. It’s a total disregard for our rights and liberties that makes the EU the monster it is.

The vote smacked of "fundamentalism if not obscurantism" because it called into "question the freedom of conscience and opinion of a Catholic commissioner, contesting the distinction he makes between morality and the law", the Italian prime minister added.

I get very worried by this, I am in complete agreement with Berlusconi, Europe’s foremost con artist. But hey, what he says is exactly true. Guardian

Last week Mr Buttiglione told MEPs: "I may think homosexuality is a sin, but this has no effect on politics unless I say homosexuality is a crime."

So there should be no argument right?

But Mr Cashman (Labour MEP) said Mr Buttiglione, a former Europe minister in Silvio Berlusconi's Italian cabinet, had put forward an amendment to delete non-discrimination on sexual grounds during the drawing up of the EU's charter of fundamental rights.

"We should not judge him by what he says but what he did and does."

Of course the whole point of these human rights legislation is to criminalise non PC thoughts, so Mr Buttiglione was perfectly correct in his action. Better still if he had tried to delete the charter from the treaty altogether In all this, I see the twisting of the concept of tolerance, a key word that we hear repeated constantly. Tolerance is apparently however, only to be extended one way. Tolerance of religious belief is out (except non Christian religions) but those who start witch hunts against people for their beliefs are allowed to call themselves tolerant. Leftists truly believe that they are better people than conservatives and therefore whatever they do is justified. That is why they scare me so much.

5 Years of the Euro

At the beginning of next year, just 3 months away, the Euro will be 5 years old. Evaluations are beginning to be made, and euologies penned. No everyone will be telling it like it is. Euro has brought stability but not growth, says Commissioner

This was the message delivered by Economics and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia at a conference in Amsterdam today (11 October) to assess the euro's first five years. "Overall, EMU [economic and monetary union] has succeeded in delivering macroeconomic stability, but it has not yet delivered economic dynamism", said Mr Almunia. He blamed the lack of dynamism on the inflexibility of the euro zone's product and labour markets.

The message about lack of flexibility is being repeated so often nowadays that if it continues, I am almost expecting some action. Well maybe in three or four years from now. On the stability side, well an economy has to be a complete basket case not to be stable when running at such a slow speed.

Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm said that the euro had brought lower interest rates and had ensured price stability but had removed some economic control from governments, according to AP.

It has certainly brought lower interest rates to much of Europe but I'm not sure the Irish would agree with the price stability bit. Besides, when economies are growing slowly, interest rates are normally lowered. It could be argued that the Euro zones fabled low interest rates are simply the flip side of its low growth. Now for price stability: From Economic Quarterly,

Inflation dispersion and inflation differentials (with respect to German inflation) within the Euro area have increased since countries lost monetary independence and were no longer required to attain inflation convergence.

So perhaps our Dutch friend was mistaken.

Additionally, the variability of the inflation differential with respect to German inflation has tended to increase for most countries since the Euro was adopted.

No stability here. As a tourist, I have found the Euro to be a great help, most of the other tests seem to have been failed.

I had my say

I joined in the fun on BBC have your say, as recommended by Eric the Unread, with the following pearl of wisdom The cause of Africa's problems is the legacy of Imperialism and the neo-colonialism that continues. If we accept our guilt for the past and stop multinationals exploiting the poor in these countries, the world would be a much better place. E Serf, Istanbul Turkey I am particularly proud of the name that I gave.

Solution to Over-fishing

All students of economics are familiar with the tragedy of the commons. The common Fisheries Policy seems to be a textbook example of the problems of such lack of ownership. Now it seems that a solution has been found to over-fishing, namely culling some of the excess fishermen.

Last Sunday, five boats were trawling about one hour’s steaming off Whitby (off the North East coast of England – for our American and other offshore friends) when the coastguard issued a severe weather warning. Sensibly, the skippers decided to head for shelter in the nearest port but, under current CFP "cod recovery" rules if they have caught more than a ton of cod, they must notify the authorities before entering port – giving them at least four hours notice. Duly, at about 6.15 pm, they contacted the call-in centre in Edinburgh to report that they were making for Whitby, whence they were told that, under the CFP rules, they could not enter until at least 10.15 pm. The skippers pointed out that, by that time, the tide would be too low and the boats would not be able to enter, and they would be forced to stay out in the gale until the early hours of the morning. Despite this, and the very real risk to life, the skippers were still refused permission to enter the port.

Couldn’t a more humane market based method be found? Answers on a postcard.

Commissioner Delegate in Religious Belief Shock

From EU Politix

Rocco Buttiglione is not suitable to be the EU’s new justice chief, the European Parliament president has said. As MEPs prepare to vote on a new European Commission, Josep Borrell has given a clear indication of his views. The outspoken Buttiglione has outraged some in the parliament with his conventional Catholic views on homosexuality and women. With such views Borrell suggests the Italian would better put in charge of root vegetables than given the EU’s growing justice brief.

Now I can understand that many people may dislike Buttiglione's views, find them backward, discriminatory or whatever, but I fail to see how they can be relevant to his fitness for the position. As these views are official Catholic views, are we to understand that Catholics are not suited to positions of authority? The EuropeanParliment is full of people who believe that property is theft, to coin an old expression. I find such a belief to be beyond the pale and much more relevant to the question of fitness for the job, as economic issues are the bread and butter of the EU. However in a democracy you except that fact that many politicians in positions of power do not share your view of the world. Buttiglione sees it like this:

“I may think that homosexuality is a sin but this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime,” he said.

I couldn't agree more. But in the minds of the Neosocialists who run our lives, no freedom of thought should be allowed unless it coincides with the party line.

Thought for the Week

The myth is deliberately cultivated that we are embarking on the new course not out of free will but because competition is spontaneously eliminated by technological changes which we neither can reverse nor should wish to prevent. This argument is rarely developed at any length -- it is one of the the assertions taken over by one writer from another till, by mere iteration , it has come to be accepted as an established fact. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom It is nice to see that we have moved on in our arguments. No-one uses such a crass technique as to say something is inevitable so we should just accept it. Do they????

The French

The French are arrogant, rude and surly to foreign visitors. And that is just the President.

Fighting Poverty with Free Trade

Global Growth Org campaigns against the causes of poverty in developing countries. Believe it or not that means lack of the rule of law, corruption and protectionism. It’s nice to see that someone doesn’t believe that Neo-Socialism is the answer to every problem. They had a nice surprise when they went to Bournemouth this week. Someone agreed with them. Alan Duncan, Member of Parliament and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, told the Conservative Party's annual conference that a future Conservative government would "reach out with practical help to the developing world.

Curing poverty is not easy. Redistribution, for instance, is never a lasting solution. But allowing people to create their own wealth is. India and China have welcomed the free market and have opened up to global trade, and have experienced a huge and unprecedented reduction in poverty affecting the life of millions of people. But other countries, whose wealth is mainly agricultural, cannot imitate their success while the rich world shackles free trade with tariff barriers and export subsidies. Open, free markets are the solution to poverty. Protectionism is the enemy. One of the most protectionist systems is the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. It is utterly unacceptable that a system designed for the world's richest should end up penalising the world's poorest. We will not stand for that. And whereas our priority is to concentrate on reducing poverty, the EU often prefers instead to use its aid money for political objectives in neighbouring countries.

What can I add except to say that the CAP is also a weight on our shoulders as consumers, particularly those with low incomes who spend a larger part of their income on food. Lets scrap it.

In an interview, Jean-Pierre Raffarin is giving his take on the constitution.

For the first time, Europe has a shared Constitution. This pact is the point of no-return. Europe is becoming an irreversible project, irrevocable after the ratification of this treaty. It is a new era for Europe, a new geography, a new history.

We often accuse the EU of wanting to be a totalitarian state when it grows up, but I didn't expect them to start changing history so soon. What changes will be made to the legacy of Mrs T, I wonder. In addition, those that like irrevocable, the treaty is for you. Those that believe that a changing world makes permanence dangerous, oh you are so backward.

Which parts of the text seem the most important to you? I think that there are two fundamental new perspectives. First of all, it is a Constitution, a common law that is binding on all of us. From Tocqueville to Raymond Aron, the French have always wanted the law to be a source of liberty.

My understanding of the phrase common law is of course different. Only a Frenchman can regard the law as the source of liberty. I consider liberty as a natural state, with the purpose of the law being to uphold that liberty. As EU law is mostly concerned with restricting freedom, the exisitence of a European Union Constitution as a source of liberty is a twisted notion indeed.

...we must reorganise the UN for more rights, we must rethink the WTO for more justice, and we must create a global environment organisation for more respect of the planet.

In other words, more nannying, more intrusion. In respect of the UN, the Oil for Fraud scandal along with inaction over Iraq shows what a great organisation that is. As for Justice, I've said it before, the poor need truly free trade, not global socialism. In terms of the environment, The Commons Blog can tackle that issue much better than I can. More outstanding comments include:

Social Europe is an ambition that we must keep to heart.

The ist is missing, I keep seeing references to Socialist Europe by politicians who forget the ist. I can't understand why.

Our social model is among the most advanced in Europe. But we will need time to impose it!

How a leader of a socially and politically bankrupt system can make such a claim is beyond me. France's social model depends on massive pillage on behalf of the state, companies which are run by unions, politicians who see corruption as the normal way to do business, the banishing of non whites into ghettos of crime and hopelessness and the blatant stealing of money from the nations of Europe to keep its farmers in hay. This is the advanced system that Monsieur Raffarin wishes to Impose (His words not mine) on the rest of us. Come the referendum, don't say you haven't been warned.

Is the EU ready for Turkey

North Sea Diaries has an excellent spoof speech, concerning whether the EU meets the criteria for Turkey. Read It

Brussels is your friend????

EC tackles Britain over booze cruise shoppers

The harsh treatment of Channel "booze cruise" shoppers could lead to a European court case after Customs and Excise officials failed yesterday to mollify Brussels. The European Commission has accused Britain of violating EU treaty law by seizing the goods of trippers caught importing alcohol and tobacco on a "non-profit" basis for family and friends.

So the extreme tactics were too much for our rulers in Brussels. So says an European Commission spokesman;

"Cross-border shopping within the internal market is a fundamental right under EU law and should not be regarded as a form of tax evasion, even if it gives rise to revenue losses for the UK exchequer," he said.

Many things could be said about this case, maybe even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, or it is just a power struggle between Brussels and London, but I believe the crux of the matter lies elsewhere. The activities of the customs and excise in this matter have been a classic case of power exercised without restraint, a group of public servants who are apparently not accountable to the public. This one of our biggest complaints about the EU, power wielded, but in whose name? But for today lets be happy, there is nothing like watching two of your enemies battling with each other, lets hope they both lose.

One More For the European Union

From Tim Worstall

As part of the drive to protect us, the drive to regulate every jot and tittle of activity on the continent, our bureaucratic masters have issued regulations about how medical trials are to be undertaken. Of course, the pimple-nosed pinheads who design such paperwork believe that the only people who do trials on new drugs and new treatments are the large drug companies. They have no knowledge of the fact that much research is done by small teams of academics, or by charities, or even purely voluntarily. The net result? Most drug research in Europe has closed down.

What a suprise, they screwed up again. Because directives are primarily influenced by lobbyists, only those who hire such people ever get heard. The rest of us find out about these screw ups after they have destroyed our way of life.

The Purpose of Prices

I'm sure you have all read about the directive concerning discrimination in the insurance market, and how risk analysis is no longer allowed where political correctness can be used otherwise.

The Council for Employment and Social Policy on Monday (4 october) delayed a decision on a directive, which would force insurance companies to treat men and women equally.The Netherlands had reached a compromise deal with the insurers,

according to which member states would be allowed to differentiate between genders in national laws if backed up by scientific data.

I have a brief point for the wise guy that thought of this compromise. The fact that the market price for men and women is different constitutes scientific data. The market price for insurance is a direct indicator of the risk associated with various groups of people. As Hayek said, the purpose of prices is to transfer information. This information is being transferred, what other data do you need.

Turkey ready

The European Commission has said Turkey is ready to start EU membership negotiations.But there was some qualification to Brussels' "yes"."It is a qualified yes that is accompanied by a large number of recommendations on following up and monitoring the situation in Turkey", said Commission President Romano Prodi, announcing the decision.

So after months of negotiations, reports, analysis and meetings, the result is an unequivocal maybe. Funny how the European Ideal runs into the mud when the issues are difficult ones.

But it also recommends restrictions on freedom of movement for Turks hoping to move to the EU.

So the the one things that most Turks want the most is not on the table.

Today’s report follows almost two decades of hand-wringing on the part of the EU and massive reforms inside Turkey.

So the EU is good at handwringing, thats news for all of us isn't it. In fact the European Union's new foreign affairs and defence strategy is likely to be based on handwringing as its core value.

A bloody struggle with Kurdish insurgents and a military coup made EU membership unthinkable until only a few years ago

Funny, the military coup was in 1980, and civilian government was returned a couple of years later. Did it take them twenty years to notice? Whilst for the Turk's sake I hope they never get in, for the sake of the rest of us I hope they do. That aside, the whole sorry saga of will they won't they has shown up the EU for the two faced organisation that it really is.

Q&A: Turkey and the EU

This week is a busy one in the corridors of European Power, but the big issue of the week will be Turkey. In response, the Guardian has a Q&A on the issue. The standout section is of course:

What are the benefits for Turkey? The EU has a track record of guaranteeing democracy, often only recently achieved, in its member states and ending cross-border conflicts. One reason that Greece, which has been on the brink of war with Turkey several times, supports membership is to increase stability in its immediate area. The commission report said that Turkey could expect substantial economic benefits.

Guaranteeing democracy is a massive claim indeed. Members such as Spain, Portugal and Greece became members soon after the fall of dictatorships. They have since been functioning democracies, but in the absence of a control group, whose to say that the EU has anything to do with this success. As for Eastern Europe, we waited until democracy was secured before accepting new members. So much for ideals. That great beacon of democracy was responsible for punishing the Austrians when their choice of government was seen as dodgy. In contrast virtually all of the current crop of leaders spent their youth working for the workers revolution, a distinctly non democratic ideal, which is apparently perfectly acceptable. We support democracy as long as the right side wins. Besides Turkey is a functioning democracy, despite the imperfections, and has been since 1983. (In fact with a few small hitches for a lot longer) Joining a socialist superstate that lacks democratic accountability is unlikely to be an improvement. As for cross border conflicts, the EU's unprecedented success is Bosnia, is something that we can all be proud of as Europeans. No sorry I'm a little confused, it could have been Kosova or maybe nowhere at all. The real benefits for Turkey as they see it are simply two.

1. Money, loads of it: Turks are jealous of the cash that the Greeks have got over the years.
2. Freedom to Travel: Everyone wants a visa from a Turk, they hate it.

The horrible truth is that the Turks will never get the money that they expect and the money will have unexpected consequences. Turkey is a corrupt country anyway, imagine the fun that could be had with billions of Euros of someone elses money.

Freedom of movement is the scariest part as far as existing members are concerned. That will be a benefit for the grandchildren.

Going Native?

So the Prince of Darkness got through his 3 hour ordeal at the hands of the MEP's with the aplomb that we would expect from the master of smarm. The key issue for MEP's seems to be whether or not the former confidant of number ten can truly be a servant of the European Project.

From EU Business He was visibly put on the spot when an MEP asked where his chief allegiance now lies: to Blair, to the European Commission, or to the EU assembly to whom he has to regularly account.

They obviously don't know our Peter, whose only loyalty is to himself. However if in a fix, the obvious thing to do is speak French. As the Troygraph Says:

Opening his remarks in stiff French before switching to English..... Soothing French MEPs in an accomplished performance at the European Parliament, the New Labour loyalist insisted that his first allegiance would now be to Brussels. "I have moved on. I am not a House of Commons man. I am a European Parliament man. I am a European Commission man," he said, promising to keep his distance from Downing Street.

So the Pension and expenses start to work immediately. But there will always be a Little Englander or two to spoil the party:

The signs that Mr Mandelson is already going native before starting work on Nov 1 provoked an acerbic response form Nigel Farage, MEP, the UK Independence Party's leader in Brussels. He called on the former Cabinet minister to resign his post as a Privy Councillor since he could not serve two masters, swearing allegiance to both the British sovereign and the EU. Mr Mandelson shot back that there was no conflict between patriotism and fervour for Europe.

Mr Farage is obviously better versed in the Good Book than Mr Mandelson. I have no doubt that many naive Europhiles believe that there is no such conflict, but Mr Farage is quoting from an authority higher than the Prince of Darkness himself when he says otherwise. When the chips are down, I wonder which way the new trade commissioner will swing?

No Trust

Apparently, the likely big hitters in the pro-constitution campaign all have a negative trust rating, so says An Englishman's Castle.

Tony Blair: 45 percent of voters agree with the statement: "Tony Blair mostly lies about Europe". As for the others:

• Neil Kinnock is at minus 1,
• Chris Patten at minus 2,
• and
• Peter Mandelson at minus 49 percent

I wonder what the trust ratings are like on the other side?

Peter Mandelson

Peter Mandelson the man everyone in the UK, except Tony, loves to hate is going to get a rough in his new position. From the Neosocialist Euro point of view he is a Neoliberal and therefore beyond the pale. (Funny how Stalinists are regarded as decent people in some circles whilst those wishing to reduce arbitrary government actions are somehow seen as not suitable for polite company). Our favorite Communist Daily writes today that The Prince of Darkness's first job is to become a mercantilist.

The foreign ministers' council, the EU's top policy-making body outside summits, expects the new commissioner to be ready to cut agricultural subsidies in world trade talks only in return for big concessions from other countries on manufacturing and services exports.

Back to the rocks in your own harbour logic.

On agriculture, the council paper handed to Mr Mandelson reaffirms the "importance of a satisfactory outcome as regards EU sensitivities in agricultural market access, the importance of full parallelism on the elimination of all forms of export subsidies, the need for major reform in other industrialised countries, the need to preserve the reforms of the CAP". "This document shows the EU in its true colours, putting the interests of European exporters before the needs of poor people in developing countries," said John Hilary, director of campaigns and policy at War on Want.

Except its not just poor people who are suffering but also the European consumer. So its in Europe's interest that Europeans pay far too much for food huh? A problem which impacts the poor in Europe far more than anyone else. Except , I'm sorry, its all about social protection.

But Caroline Lucas, a leading Green, said Mr Mandelson faced questions on whether he stood up for the Atlanticist economic model or the Franco-German model of social protection through trade regulation.

Will there ever be a time when trade negotiations are based on economic reality and not macho posturing and socialist ignorance?

The European Way

One of the underlying motivations for Euro Federalists is to be able to protect the European Social Model. The Draft constitution includes an attempt to carve this particular piece of lunacy in stone. Over at Adam Smith they take up the subject of productivity;

Snooty academics have been gleefully asserting how bad British managers are, and how we should all copy Continental social policies, following a study which says UK productivity is 20% lower than France and Germany. But unlike those countries, Britain has a flexible labour market. It's simply impossible to fire anyone in France and Germany, so you don't hire them in the first place. You hire robots instead. And that's why Britain's unemployment is non-existent and France and Germany's are through the roof.

One day the peoples of both France and Germany will be forced to accept this truth and reform accordingly. If the rest of Europe is not forced to follow in their footsteps, that day will be sooner rather than later. Social legislation is an area where competition between different models is far better than a monoculture.

Efficient Government

Today I watched a programme on BBC World, called The Record Europe. It is all about the politics of the EU. Whilst the single half hour segment had enough material for a week of blogging, one thing in particular took my interest. Labour MEP Richard Corbett was arguing in favour of the Draft Constitution. It will make the EU more effective he said. This raises the question, why would anyone want a more effective EU. It would just mean more directives, more regulations and more interference. What we want is to make the EU as ineffective as possible. If this is the best argument for the constitution then the way to vote is obvious, isn't it?

Perfectly Said

Civitas has a short post which sums up what I dislike about the EU. I wish I had said it first

The majority of new laws are initiated by the European Union. Many are not even rubber-stamped by Parliament. When John Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in the 1680s to defend the emerging democratisation of this country, he laid down the four main characteristics of a free society. The fourth was that the legislature “cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.” The people, he said, had given Parliament the power “only to make laws, and not to make legislators”. The government had no power to transfer their authority to make laws and place it in other hands. (From John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689, s. 141.) Perhaps a few of our Parliamentarians should read Locke before they give away any more of our freedom to govern ourselves.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Upside down

The subject of immigration has been rising inexorably for the last few years, changing from the unspoken subject to become a major discussion issue. As such it has gained prominence in EU discussions of all kinds. Now the EU is preparing to process asylum seekers before they reach Europe.

EU to hold asylum seekers in N Africa EU justice ministers backed proposals by the European Commission for five pilot projects in Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia to handle refugee applications. Civil rights groups have attacked the scheme as a step towards holding camps in buffer states outside Europe. They fear that the EU is trying to sub-contract its immigration and asylum policy to countries beyond proper scrutiny.

One of the things that has puzzled me about immigration is our apparent inability to choose hwo can and can't stay. Those whose appeals fail still stay in the country they have no right to be in. This is undoubtedly the most significant reason why indigenous Europeans have become so stridently anti-immigration. So I have a suggestion. Do away with the human rights legislation that stops us from throwing out wasters and terrorists and we no longer have to deal with immigrants as if they were a plague. But no, that would be too logical.

Too late to benefit?

Nowhere is the true danger of government entitlements more clear than in the area of subsidies. Once given, their removal or reform becomes almost impossible. It is possible that not one single person thinks that the CAP is a good system and yet once snouts are in the trough all hope for change is lost. Hence just 5 months after joining the EU, we can see headlines such as this: Polish sugar farmers fear subsidy cuts A single example of why:

"Since joining the EU, sugar beet is definitely most profitable crop to grow," says Mr Szpura, "I'll get 80% more money than last year growing these and production costs haven't changed as much, so this year I'll double my profits."

Who wouldn’t want to keep such largesse? Yet unfortunately for Mr Szpura, the sugar regime has become so iniquitous that even the EU is being forced to consider reforming the regime. Currently five million tonnes of European sugar are dumped on world markets every year, and I mean dumped. Millions of farmers in poor countries are losing out to subsidised fat cats in Europe.

Seeing as 60% of farmers in the new entrants had good or very good expectations of the CAP, it does seem unfortunate that the reality is proving somewhat less positive. Some 59% of Mr Szpura’s peers had a favorable view of the EU’s agricultural policies in a survey published last year, with 73% of them expecting EU accession to have a positive effect on farming.

Well the reality is sinking in. Lets hope the consumers in the new countries also start to understand how they are being ripped off.

The Lisbon Council

Several pro-reform groups gathering under the umbrella of the Lisbon Council have presented a manifesto outlining their ideas for a debate on a new 'Social Contract for the 21st century'.

The Lisbon Council manifesto starts from the observation that Europe's current social model is not so 'social' anymore with millions of unemployed. It points to the influence of special interest groups and proposes a modernised social contract based on four guiding principles: 1) full employment and job creation 2) education and life-long learning 3) opportunity and innovation 4) sustainable public finances

Bland, probably of no value whatsoever, but it is nice to see someone trying to remind the EU that there are options other than the tried and failed models of the past. It is also nice seeing new members involved in such debates. Despite the fact that they all keeled over and agreed to the constitution, it does show that there may be hope.