What Constitutes a Win?

With Dutch Voters going to the Polls today, I thought you might like to know the rules of the game.

51% No / 49% Yes = a win for the Government.

Confused? Well you see the referendum is not binding, so those in power are free to interpret the result. What the Government has said publicly is that a 30% Turnout and a 55% anti vote will be enough to convince them. It’s a good thing that 59% plan to vote against. For those thinking that this is unfair, the government has actually softened its position:

The CDA (Governing Party) initially said 60 percent needed to vote no for it accept the public's decision.

With commentators saying that voters use referendums to kick the political elite, this seems a strategy designed to backfire. I wonder if the vote had been binding, whether the voters would have been more inclined to listen to what they were told?

The Treaty is Dead, Long live the Treaty

The EU is still able to strut on the World stage, so says the man who was tipped for the job of Foreign Minister.

Despite the French No vote and even without a new constitution, the EU will continue to be a player on the international stage.

Bringing relief to dictatorships everywhere no doubt. He went on to add that French Voters could go to hell as far as he was concerned.

Solana stressed that the EU diplomatic service - still in its infancy and forseen under the new constitution - will see the light of day in any case. "There is no reason to doubt that sooner or later the EU will have its own diplomatic service and everyone must get used to the idea".

It’s not a very long word Mr Solana. Which part of Non don’t you understand.

Patrons of Lost Causes

We expect Socialists to be good at backing lost causes.

Martin Schulz, leader of the 201-strong Socialist Group, declared: "The battle goes on. The ratification process must continue because all countries must have the opportunity to express their view.

Because the French voters were wrong, they must be ignored.

"Our fight for the constitution will continue because we want to provide for a more social Europe. The Treaty of Nice is not the basis for a social Union that shows greater solidarity.

Funny how it doesn't surprise me that the successors of Uncle Joe Stalin are going to ignore the voters wishes.

Mark Steyn

As Nike would say if it were a publisher: Just Read It

Tony the Killer

In a move that shows that Our Dear Leader has more skills than we thought possible, it appears that he is a Special Forces Operative.

Tony Blair was on a collision course with fellow European leaders last night over Government plans to kill off the EU constitution.

Unconfirmed reports said he was going to take it into the woods and shoot it. Aparently, The Countryside Alliance offered to do the deed for him. Surely Tony should realise that under the terms of the constitution The Right to Life is sacrosanct. For this reason we will never be able to actually do the deed. Unless of course we decide that as a yet unborn treaty, it would count as Abortion and not Capital Punishment.

Tax Freedom Day

Whilst you are all celebrating the result in France, I thought I should remind you that today there is another reason to celebrate. Tax Freedom Day!!!!!!! The work of the Lord of the Manor is finished, from now on you are free to till your own plots. Be ye merry Serfs.

Great Comment

Stephen Pollard has some great comments on the vote. Our Dear Leader is not lucky:

Blair is without a doubt the most politically brilliant PM, whose strategic vision is so deft that most observers don't even see what he's up to.

Strong stuff indeed, but you have to admit there is a chance that its true. Why shouldn’t free market Eurosceptics in Britain be happy?

If the French want to preserve their youth unemployment, their sclerotic economy, their bizarre labour laws and their bankrupt welfare state, that is their right. And if we don't want to have even more decisions taken by Qualified Majority Voting in Brussels, that is our right. Neither position is in any way contradictory.

We shouldn’t have asked the people.

It is, of course, precisely that sod the public Euro-elite mindset which is responsible for the thumping rejection of the constitution. And that is a thought which M Moisi and his fellows are clearly unable even to think, let alone learn from.

Our Betters

The EU elites' world view, in one sentence. Sod the public.

We Refuse your Non

The Young European Federalists as we would expect from such upstanding citizens are calling for the Euro Elites to ignore French Citizenry.

The Young European Federalists are profoundly concerned by the projected NON-vote in today’s referendum in France. This is a European question, and the referendum in France has been fought on principally national grounds.

Bastards, fancy worrying about mere national politics when a Brave New Euro world awaits.

“Our reaction must be strong – the ratification process must continue.

I always respect a politician who is strong in the face of Democracy. After all its far less risky than being strong in the face of Terrorism or Dictatorship.

“The message of a better Europe that the Constitution brings is strong! We have to explain this to the citizens – starting now!”

I’m no expert on political campaigning, but I was always under the impression that starting before the vote happened was more usual. It seems somewhat more logical as well.

Which Way Now?

The French have done the dirty deed for us, which may be the first time it was not the other way around. What happens next? The EU commission will try to revive some parts of the treaty, particularly the most important bits (Foreign Minister, voting system etc.) How successful they are depends on how well we resist them. Whatever they propose, however small, we must remind them that the idea has already been put to the vote and rejected. The future of the EU now becomes a hot topic. The previous assumptions have all been put to rest. The election of so many UKIP MEPs last year was a major step in this direction for the UK last year. France is following and will soon be joined by the Dutch. Now, the BBC and Europhiles can no longer talk about us being out of sync with the rest of Europe. Although the political elite will resist, the referendum cat is out of the bag. Any further integration is severely curtailed. The reason is simple. From today on, any politician wanting to make a name for themselves has a very easy option. Call for a referendum on some issue to doing with Europe. With 25 chances of it happening, all future treaties will have to pass the referendum test. That basically means no more treaties. Tony Blair is out of the frying pan into the fire. He doesn’t need to face the public, but instead become the face of the EU at the worst possible time. Unless the heads of government agree to kill off the treaty within the next month he will be in an impossible situation. He will be unable to cancel the UK referendum, despite everyone knowing that it will never happen. The French want a social Europe. We want a free market. From now on its gloves off and the French have just lost their natural advantage. There is no chance of France forming an inner core. They have lost credibility as a leader of the EU. An inner core would be a nightmare, as they would try to push all of their ideas onto the wider membership and would do so as a block. Across Europe, all Eurosceptics, whatever their core beliefs have taken great heart from this result. Our opponents are now on the back foot. Its our job to keep them there.

Postmortem of a Political Earthquake

The news media are full of the recriminations of the No Vote in France. Who won? Who Lost? What is the next step? Where does the future of the EU lie? First we must consider what has happened here. This is no mere Bump in the road, to be ironed out after some negotiation. This is an event that will shape everything that comes afterwards, from further integrations to enlargement, to the balance of power in the EU. In terms of precedents, this is a big one. The first time a major country has rejected a treaty. This on the first time that so many countries had been offered referendums. It’s the first major French Rebellion in the history of the EU. Never before have so many eyes been so firmly on such an acrimonious debate on the future of Europe. With the major political parties lining up on the Yes side, they were still defeated. This shows that the political elite still has its collective head in the clouds. It also shows that it no longer matters anymore. The people when given a chance have a loud enough voice of their own. The Dutch referendum is likely to reinforce this fact later this week. Pro Treaty Campaigners such as Francois Hollande ("The rejection of this treaty is above all the rejection of the government,"), are trying to paint this as the rejection of the government rather than the EU. Presenters on BBC last night were asking the question, Is this result really about the Treaty or the Government. No campaigners were predictably saying that it was about the treaty, Yes campaigners (especially Socialists) that it was about the government. There was an underlying assumption that the No voters were somehow ignorant. Lets get something straight here. Most of the No’s voted against what they see the EU to have become, most of the Yes’s for a vaguely Pro-EU ideal. Neither side was more sophisticated than the other, although one should not forget that books about this treaty have been selling like Hot Croissants so the electorate is surely not all ignorant. The idea that the general public is too ignorant to be allowed a vote on complex treaties, is I think, made rather stupid by the fact that those who vote on these things for us, generally don’t read them either. Kenneth Clarke famously admitted that he had not read the Maastricht treaty. The now obviously fatal decision to hold the Dutch Referendum so close to the French one, will of course be the final death knoll for this treaty. It is also the reason that EU officials and Pro Constitution governments have to make fools of themselves over the next 3 days, so as not to place their Dutch Colleagues in an impossible situation. Once that is out of the way, the treaty will be well and truly dead.

How they Saw it

The comments from both sides on the result were predictable enough to have been written last week: Jacques Chirac

Voters have expressed themselves "democratically" and taken a "sovereign decision"

The old crook is now in a very difficult situation indeed. Bang go his chances of re-election. Viva President Sarkozy.

Jack Straw

"Personally, I'm sad about the result. I think it was a very good treaty - one that would benefit not only Britain but also the rest of Europe.

Translated means, thank god it wasn’t us. Philippe de Villiers

"Europe has to be rebuilt. The constitution is no more."

Up yours Delors, Chirac, and Giscard. Francois Hollande

"The rejection of this treaty is above all the rejection of the government," he said.

We were great, it’s the UMP that screwed it up for us. (This despite the fact that Socialists going over to the No side swung it) Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende

"There is all the more reason to say 'Yes' so that some progress can be recorded"

I’m desperate help me out here someone. Liam Fox, the shadow Foreign Secretary

"It is very clear this treaty does not do what the people of Europe want and I think it should be put to rest right away.

Go on, I dare you to admit it. If you revive any of it, we’ll be on your case. Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg

“The treaty is not dead.”

This Parrot is just sleeping. Gerhard Schröder

“The referendum result is a blow for the constitutional process, but not the end of it.

We have ways of making you vote the way we want. Luke Waddington, head of currency trading in Tokyo at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc

"It's quite straight-forward: Sell the euro, it's going lower.''

The first good economic news in the Eurozone in a long time. Timothy Garton Ash

For the French to say no to Europe is like the English saying no to beef or the Russians saying no to vodka.

Considering the BSE scare and the alcoholism problem in Russia, I take it you mean that in a positive way? EU Serf Champagne, Thats French isn't it?

Thank You France

With the result unequivocal this result is far better than a mere majority. On behalf of the Eurosceptics of the whole continent, I would like to thank French voters for destroying this terrible treaty. I look forward to the chaos that will now ensue.

Normal Service Resumed

Of all the weekends for it to happen, my internet connection failed to work all weekend. Cooment on the little upset for the Federasts is on its way.

Stupid Electorate

The problem with the referendums are that the public is too stupid to understand the issues. So says Erik Jones, a Resident Associate Professor of European Studies.

European Democracy

If you want to understand what democracy means in the EU, check out these comments by Jean-Claude Juncker.

What is the Parliament For?

The European Parliament desperately wants to be taken seriously. So why doesn’t it do its job properly?

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, went to the European Parliament on Wednesday and faced down a Euro-skeptic attack on his credibility, accusing his critics of practicing "demagoguery" and "gutter politics."

So the man is arrogant and thinks himself untouchable. But what do the MEP’s have to say?

• The loudest applause went to Barroso, who was supported by the leaders of the four biggest factions in the Parliament.
• Hans-Gert Pöttering, leader of the center-right European People's Party, the biggest block in Parliament, called the motion "humanly indecent."
• Graham Watson, the Liberals' leader, said to Barroso's critics: "You are ridiculous.

So they care about nothing except which side the accusers are on. Perhaps we should not expect Italians to take one example, to raise any eyebrows over such a small trifling matter. But to see so many parliamentarians from so many different political cultures, come to the conclusion that these issues are of no interest to their constituents is a neat illustration of why this parliament is not worth taking seriously. To those that claim the EU’s democratic deficit can be solved by giving this parliament more power, I can only say, when given an opportunity to hold the executive to account it failed. Such a body can never truly represent the people.

Peoples Party or Peoples Republic?

The European Peoples Party, the Centre Right Grouping in the European Parliament is a cheerleader for federalism. The British Conservative party, that is for some reason attached to it, is not. This can lead to problems:

A Conservative MEP had his party membership suspended yesterday by the head of the British Tory delegation in the European Parliament after an angry debate about excessive European Union secrecy.

Roger Helmer, the MEP in Question, not unreasonably added his name to Nigel Farage’s motion of censure against Barroso. Now he and his fellow conspirators are in trouble.

Four other British Conservatives were threatened with expulsion from the European People's Party, the parliament's majority centre-Right faction, by the EPP's German leader, Hans-Gert Poettering.

You see, although the motion asked a serious question about transparency and honesty, to back it was to be disloyal to the cause. The same parliament that believes that religious belief is a good enough reason to bar a well qualified person from being a European Commissioner, places much less importance on the issue of good governance. So the people who ask the questions need to be punished. Those who saw fit to claim that hard-line religious belief has no place in their European dream, are acting like the Spanish Inquisition.

Commissioner Canute

One of the Former Communists in the European Commission is working on a plan that will go down like a lead balloon.

EU tax commissioner Laszlo Kovacs will be ready to table a plan for greater harmonisation of corporate taxes in three years' time.

Rather than get irate and rant about economic sovereignty, I would just like to point out to the old chap that the tide is rather going the other way. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia are all enjoying the fruits of a flat tax, which are set at rates below what the harmonisers want. Croatia is likely to join them. Other new members are looking on with interest and if no-one else joins the club in the next three years I will be very surprised. By 2008, Romania will have probably joined the EU, bringing another flat tax into the club. Austria has lowered its tax rates and is busy promoting itself as a low tax alternative. The UK even under the Ghastly Statist Gordon Brown is unlikely to accept. Even Germany may have a government more inclined to decrease taxes than increase them by that date. Of course, aware that their will be opponents, the system will be flexible.

Twenty member states out of 25 supported the idea of an EU-wide corporate tax base, the commissioner said, opening up the way ahead for the majority of member states under the reinforced cooperation mechanism, which would allow opponents such as the UK to remain outside

Seeing that we have at least 7 nations listed with very good reasons to resist, the number 20 seems a little optimistic. Besides having seen how waterproof Opt outs are, does he really expect the opponents not to try and derail the whole thing? For those with an interest in Flat Taxes, This Blogger has ideas on how to apply the system to the USA.

Deplorable Europhobia

Great Comment in the Telegraph:

The first thing to get out of their minds is that their unpopularity is due to some deplorable Europhobia. Britain today is a genuinely open nation. We are utterly unfazed when our football teams are monopolised by Dutchmen and Spaniards or when our water companies are gobbled up by the French. We just do not see why we should have to put up with an EU which is so secretive, fraud-ridden, interfering and wasteful.

But if the Federasts accept this idea, their only real argument is gone. That is why they will refuse until death, that there are reasonable, logical arguments against their vision of paradise.

Mr Red Tape on Road to Damascus

Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great promise yesterday:

Britain will use its presidency of the European Union later this year to try to cut the amount of regulation on businesses.

Which is either the greatest conversion since St Paul, a totally cynical piece of political theatre or the blabbing of an idiot who has no idea what red tape is in the first place. Gordon Brown is second to no one in the belief that “Wise Government” can be a force for good. His immensely complicated tax system and tax breaks for everything that his greatness believes to be “good” demonstrate this clearly. He is a member of a government run by a control freak, who will not be happy until he has tied the public sector up so much in targets and rules, that it won't be long before doctors will have to apply 3 weeks in advance to go to the toilet. He is also a representative of a government that is committed to further European Integration. This despite a recent example of how EU rules will eventually strangle the life out of every business in the continent, opt outs notwithstanding. In short he personally bares much of the guilt for the situation as it stands. When will the press wake up and realise that the Scottish Raj has no clothes?

Mandy’s Unwinnable War

If Mandy continues to push China over textiles, China will respond:

China says that it will scrap recently agreed plans to increase export tariffs on textiles should the EU and the United States also impose quotas on imports.

In another move that ultimately shows the stupidity of protectionism, big manufacturers are learning that China is not the only option for producing cheap textiles

Faced with a higher tax on exports following pressure from the U.S. and the European Union, large Chinese textile suppliers to Wal-Mart are relocating their manufacturing base to India.

So in place of one large incredibly cheap textile producer, we now get two. Should the EU and USA wise up to this one, expect the investments to happen elsewhere. The only thing we should not expect is that elsewhere to be the EU or USA

The Meaning of No

There are two scenarios that I can think of for the EU after a French No. 1) Drift and confusion 2) Left Wing backlash We British Eurosceptics must hope for the former. A lifeless EU is exactly what we need and organisation without morale or leadership. We can push harder for reform, generate arguments and generally cause trouble. The latter is a nightmare but bearing in mind where the resistance comes from a very likely scenario. Take the following comments from the Nons

• It's a threat to our wages Social Europe is raising the lowest salaries. Liberal Europe is lowering them
• Chirac is caving in to the opponents of the constitution
• The constitution is a ``liberal straitjacket

From Chirac:

Our Anglo-Saxon partners, both inside Europe and outside Europe, object to this constitution precisely because it's too interventionist, too humanist

From a frustrated CEO:

Only in France do you find right-wing parties openly rejecting the free market

Our only hope is that a certain young ambitious politician replace Chirac as candidate in the next election.

The best social model is one that allows everyone to work,'' said Nicolas Sarkozy

And that most certainly is not the failed Social Model beloved by our French and German friends.

Attack from the Left Flank

Following his party’s disaster on Sunday, Schroder now faces a new challenge on the left. Oskar Lafontaine, former chairman of Mr Schröder's Social Democratic party, said he would give up his party membership and enter the electoral battle if other SPD dissidents and neo-communists ran on a joint ticket. If Red Oskar is able to pull a decent number of people with him the CDU will be a shoo in.

The Quisling Act

The Foreign Secretary introduced a bill to the commons allowing for a referendum and the acceptance of the constitution should the result be yes. His comments show what a masochist this man really is:

I look forward to debating the facts of this Treaty in the House, dispelling the many myths around it and setting out for the British public the clear case for voting Yes."

We look forward to propagating even more Myths and generally making trouble. Believe me it will be a lot more fun than trying to sell the public a lemon that the French and Dutch have already rejected.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

EU Rota has a couple of posts which look at the numbers underlying the EU stories. Take the idea that a French or Dutch No would create economic havoc. A simple graph of the performance of the main European stock markets over the last few days shows this one up for the lie that it is. Or perhaps take a look at the wonderful brave new world of European integration from a GDP growth point of view. By splitting the members into 3 groups and comparing them, the prognosis for the Eurozone does not seem good. As he says Statistics are open to abuse, but they can be very enlightening. With the interactivity of a Blog, if you think someone is playing fast and loose with numbers you can tell them. Which should make statistics on Blogs more reliable.

Changing Poles

The previously Eurosceptic Poles are becoming less sceptical it seems.

Since the treaty signing in December 2003, however, the issue has become much less contentious. Polish sceptics, too, have largely been won over by the economic boom sparked by EU membership in May 2004.

They have also been relieved to note that the Franco German Alliance is not the power it was.

When it is explained that France and Germany won't control everything, they change their view.

So maybe the Poles will be less useful as allies after all.

Thoughtful, The Guardian?

In a Guardian Comment, I came across this sentence, concerning European Economies being able to transform themselves to cope with globalisation:

If the constitution can facilitate this process of transition then it is worth supporting. If it is seen as a weapon to block transition, it is worthless and may even hasten the break-up of the EU.

Which is a good question that although we may disagree on the answer, should be asked by every Europhile. Whilst on the result:

In that sense, it is not so important whether France or the Netherlands votes yes or no on the constitution next week as whether they trigger an effort to create a protectionist European core group.

Which is an issue that we Eurosceptics should worry about. The last thing we need are a bunch of protectionist neighbours and judging by the campaign in France, this outcome is a possibility.

EU Standards Reduce Profits

No not expensive regulations. Apparently under new accounting rules, large numbers of companies are reporting big decreases in profits. I have no idea whether the new rules are a good idea or not, I’m not an accountant.

Display your Prejudices

I get great enjoyment from reading Have Your Say on the BBC’s website. I have heard many complaints that it is biased (What does one expect from a state owned company) but the comments contain many gems. I put together a collection of pro-constitution comments which fit my own prejudices. Note the total lack of any attempt to deal with the issues.

Personally, I would vote yes. Yes a European constitution is better than taking on the US constitution as the 51st State of America, which the likes of the Tories and UKIP seem to want. A no for Europe means a yes for America and GW Bush. If you want to be governed by America, vote no. Scott Cheadle, Zurich (Expat Brit)

We Tory and UKIP voters want to become a state of the USA? Quick tip Scott, the I in UKIP stands for Independent. As for Bush, he has 3½ more years after which he is history. If the Constitution were only to last that long even I might vote for it.

I will vote yes in the referendum. As a part of my study of international relations, I had to read the constitution and although at some points I disagree, on the whole I think it will give the EU a firm base. However, I would like to see an end to the British rebate and I hope this constitution will regulate the EU coffers. Kim, Rotterdam, Netherlands

What is a firm base and why one would want such a thing is an open question.

Britain and France are the only two countries where the population is kicking up a fuss about this constitution. The British claim that it will create a "leftie" socialist superstate ruled from Brussels. The French claim the contrary - an "Anglo-Saxon" style free-market economy comparable with the United States. It would appear that neither have read the document. Darryl LeCount, Paderborn, Germany

All the opponents are stupid and I am clever!!!!! Why do I like it? Because I am sophisticated. If he were that clever he would have noticed that the Dutch are about to reject it and that from Sweden to Poland, the document is much discussed. And the Gleaming Pearl of them all:

I will vote "Oui" and I really hope that the "Oui" win. It's the first time in history some people from different countries, with different languages, ideas...want to live together in peace. The EU constitution is a great project for European people, but also like a light to follow for others countries over the world. Chris, Toulouse

Chris why don’t you sing Kum bi Ahh and get over it. I suspect most people in most times have wanted to live in peace. None of the others were stupid enough to think that paying Farmers not to grow anything or compensating airline passengers for cancellations was a necessary part of the process. In fact it is very possible to be Pro EU integration and not like this treaty:

Pro EU? Yes. Pro Constitution? Yes, but not this one. Emily S, Manchester, UK

Whilst I am sure that we would disagree on many things, at least Emily has obviously some idea of what is in the treaty. As I have said before, the only real way to support the EU is wishy-washy ideals. When it comes to the hard facts very little of what happens in any way supports these ideal.

Heading for the Waste Paper Basket

Giscard’s folly is heading for defeat, not just in one founding member but in two.

With just a week to go campaigners fighting Europe's constitutional treaty are heading for victory in French and Dutch referendums, according to opinion polls this weekend.

Tony is to be spared, but the process of creeping EU supremacy is in for an interesting time. Polls: France: No 52%, Yes 48% Netherlands: No 63%, Yes 37%

Cancelled or Delayed?

The wonderful new EU regulations on compensation for cancelled flights, is suffering from turbulence.

Rules intended to provide compensation to stranded airline passengers are in disarray because of disagreements over the difference between delays and cancellations.

The airlines tend to prefer to call problems delays rather than cancellations, the passengers are not convinced. This is the expected result of bureaucrats trying to run the private sector. Costs rise, companies have to deal with unnecessary complexity and the consumer does not get the benefit promised.

The Orphan Euro

Did you know that?

The euro is the only currency in the world signed by nobody.

So says George Trefgarne, who reminds us that:

Indeed, it was the need to underpin the currency that led to the development of the constitution of the United States in the first place.

So the Euro is a worthless piece of paper, backed by no-one. Rejection of the constitution will mean the one legal guarantee that could have stood behind it, won’t. Yet Our Dear Leader has repeatedly said that joining the Euro is

1. In our interests and
2. Totally separate from the issue of the Constitution.

No wonder they call him Bliar.

Constitution Points to Ponder

Susan George, vice-president of the French Attac organisation, has a critique of the Constitution that is both simple and comprehensive. She makes a number of major points.

1) Complexity A Constitution should be comprehensible for the people it will govern. This text completely fails the test.

It is the legislative equivalent of small print. Meant to be important, but designed not to be read.

2) The people are absent A Constitution must be based on popular sovereignty, that is, come from the people. We have known this since the 18th century. Here this principle is forgotten.

This principle is absent from the whole EU, which is where the problem starts.

3) Signing for an "unlimited duration" One must be able to change a Constitution. Changes cannot, for all practical purposes, be made to the TCE.

It would have made it a little heavy, but this document might as well have been carved in stone.

4) A neo-liberal dream The TCE goes into huge detail on economic and monetary policy. The only other Constitution I know of that devotes so much detail to economics was the Stalinist one of the Soviet Union of 1936.

As a Neo-Liberal myself, I have to say that it is a Neo Liberal’s nightmare, but the level of detail about economic issues is itself a major problem. General principles belong in a constitution, not details.

5) Separation of powers Normal Constitutional principals such as separation of powers and "checks and balances" are almost entirely absent and the executive branch is far too dominant.

This is the most essential part of any constitution and it is missing from this one.

6) Read it People who have actually read the text almost always come out of this difficult exercise determined to vote against it

Anyone who actually looks at the text is likely to at least regard it with suspicion if not outright hostility. Our best argument is the text itself. All in all it’s a great dissection from someone with whom I would normally have little in common.

Coming Cash Crisis

EU members cannot agree on a budget and it got me thinking. The budget in question is for the period 2007 to 2013. It was possible that agreement on this budget could have been achieved earlier this year prior to the UK General Election. So imagine the scenario. A budget is agreed to up until 2013. The Conservatives win the general election pledging to reduce Britain’s contribution, cut spending on CAP or some other issue that would impact the budget. The Conservatives lose the election in 2010, having spent 5 years in power, with a budget that they were fundamentally opposed to, unable to change anything. 5 year Budgets are common in communist countries of course, but failing a revolution the government is not going to change anyway. But how can a five year budget be reasonable in a democracy where priorities change and governments can fall. How does any British Government have the right to tie a future Parliament to an EU budget that they may wish to change?

Precautionary Principle Protectionism

We all know that the idea behind the precautionary principle is ludicrous, a search for a risk free life, rather than a logical cost benefit analysis approach. According to an American Think Tank, the idea is designed to be protectionist.

This study reveals how certain health and safety and environmental standards and regulations implemented unilaterally by the EU impede economic growth, social welfare and public health maintenance in developing countries.

By imposing strict standards on goods coming from developing countries, the EU is effectively shutting companies and individuals from the world’s poorest countries, from the single greatest concentration of rich consumers on earth. In addition EU backed activities try to push EU standards on other countries via their citizens.

ENGO campaigns launched in developing countries (e.g., concerning Biosafety (GMOs), REACH, Basel and POPs) seek to alter consumer perceptions and generate public fears about uncertain risks associated with potentially dangerous substances, industrial processes and novel technologies, without resort to objective and scientifically relevant fact-finding.

Such a combination of threat and propaganda is highly immoral and undermines economic and political development in poor countries. For the EU to think that the damage can be undone by a tax on airline tickets or other window dressing is wilfully dishonest.

Manifesto Commitment

When is a Manifesto Commitment not a commitment? When the Voters of another country decide that it isn’t. ZaNu Labour, neutralised the EU issue at the recent election by promising a referendum on the constitution. Now no-one seems to know what the result of a French or Dutch No would be.

Douglas Alexander, the Europe minister, yesterday backed away from his earlier statement to MPs that a referendum would be held regardless of what happens elsewhere in Europe. He was contradicted by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who hinted that Britain would not hold a poll if the treaty was rejected by France or other countries.

If Jack Straw is correct, the decision to hold a referendum, far from being a great political risk, has turned out to be a very shrewd move. Not only did he neutralise the issue for the election, he has not dirtied his hands with the issue, which would have lost him a lot of support. So the French could give Our Dear Leader a get out of Jail Card, and his manifesto commitment will prove to be as worthless as we have come to expect.

President to Answer Critics

The President of the Commission has agreed to appear before MEPs to answer questions over his Summer Holiday.

Jose Manuel Barroso confirmed on Wednesday (18 May) that he will personally answer MEPs' questions in a motion of censure hearing next week, out of respect for the European Parliament.

Which is good news, but:

The commission also reiterated its view that the motion is "unjustified" - rejecting claims that his acceptance of a free holiday from Greek shipping baron Spiros Latsis last August created a conflict of interest.

Which is the infuriating part. I am fully willing to believe that there was no conflict of interest and will not be overly disappointed if Barroso comes out smelling of roses. The point is not whether he is guilty of something or not. What is really at issue is the idea that someone in his position should feel that it is not necessary to make public something that could be reasonably seen to compromise his position. I don’t expect him to pay his friend to stay on his yacht. Nor do I expect him to refuse invitations from friends. What I do object to is the fact that the commission and apparently most of the Parliament think that it was none of our business. If it were not for Richard North and Nigel Farage, we would never have heard about any of it.

Bleedin Obvious Award

In today’s FT, those highly paid experts from Standard & Poor’s have got dome astounding news for us:

Some of Europe’s largest economies, including Germany, Italy and France, seem ill-equipped to adjust their fiscal policies swiftly and effectively in the face of economic shocks

Wow, now wasn’t that a surprise. It qualifies for being the most Bleedin Obvious news of the week. The real surprise is that they only focused on taxation and spending policies:

Rigid spending and taxation policies of some governments would make it difficult for them to avoid a deterioration in their deficits if faced with adverse trends.

In addition to these problems they are also vunerable due to the following reasons:

1. No chance to alter their interest rates to meet their own requirements
2. No flexibility of exchange rates to cushion shocks in individual Eurozone countries
3. Labour markets that make Glass look flexible
4. In Germany, Politicians who think Capitalists are Locusts
5. In France a President who thinks Liberals are as bad as Communists.

All in all prospects do not look rosy.

Who’s Ignorant?

Many Europhiles claim that Eurosceptics are just ignorant. This report about the Netherlands doesn’t seem to support that.

85% of the people who claim to know the contents of the Constitution very well, plan to vote No. Of those who say they know the rough outline of the Constitution, 73% will vote against. People who say they are ill informed, or completely unaware of the contents of the Constitution do not tend so much towards a No : respectively 46 and 38 percent.

The less people know, the more likely they are to vote yes. Somehow that doesn’t fit the Europhile Meme does it?

The Queen’s Speech

Four pages of Neo Socialist Drivel, including further undermining of the basic principles of our common law. Sometimes ZaNu Labour’s policies goals sound like a speech by a Miss World Contestant. This speech is one of them. Tucked away at a point in the Speech where everyone is guaranteed to have nodded off is this innocuous sentence:

My Government will bring forward a Bill to give effect to the Constitutional Treaty for the European Union.

Her Majesty may as well have abdicated there and then. Another interesting sentence was:

The United Kingdom will take over the Presidency of the European Union in July, and my Government will work to build an increasingly prosperous and secure Europe.

Which raises the question. If they want to build a prosperous Europe, why are they supporting the constitution? A document that will be used over time to destroy our competitiveness and remove the pressure to reform from our neighbours. As for security:

My Government will work to strengthen commitment to the continued effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Which will of course not be at all undermined by a European Army and a European Foreign Minister. Welcome to the New Government and Parliament. May the country that we love still be there after you have gone.

Capitalism is the Problem

Reactionary right wingers like myself have been barking up the wrong tree. We all thought that Germany was suffering because of the Social Model. Someone more important than us knows the real answer.

German chancellor Gerhard Schröder will next month call for a European initiative to promote public spending on research, set minimum social standards in companies and tighten controls on international financial flows.

With such a brave and foresighted programme we can’t go wrong. Viva Neo Socialism.

We Reject your T-Shirts

To protect European consumers from paying too little for their clothes, Mandy has kindly agreed to take action.

The European Union on Tuesday issued a final warning to China over its booming textile exports, threatening sanctions against two categories of textiles to prevent “irreparable harm” to European producers.

Which is good because none of us wanted to have to buy our goods cheaper.

Book From Civitas

Thanks to Tim, I stumbled across a book published by Civitas which I might have to purchase. The Book discusses the merits of staying in the EU and pushing for reform, and Leaving, with Stephen Pollard arguing for the former and Lord Pearson the latter. The book’s write up has this to say.

The authors argue their opposing positions with passion and conviction, enabling readers to compare and evaluate the two sides of this most topical debate.

Notice that the two sides of the debate are not Europhile versus Europhobe, but reform versus divorce. That in itself is a big leap forward.

Only 9%

In an addition to the post concerning Stephen Hughes idiotic comments yesterday, EUrota pointed out that there was another way to look at it. There is no single product group that represents 9% of British exports. So we could easily pick any product group, lets say Oil & Gas, which accounts for 4.7% of British Exports. Now we say in Moonbat fashion, Oil & Gas is bad for the environment so we have decided to stop exporting it. To those who call us crazy, we say: But it will only effect less than 5% of our exports. You see being a complete Plonker with statistics is quite easy is it not?

Farming Cock Up

Is it the EU’s fault or the Government’s or the Farmers?

The deadline for new European Union farm payments passed yesterday with more than 40,000 farmers in England having not applied, the Rural Payments Agency said.

I’m sure everyone will blame each other, but the core problem is a system that turns self reliant people into welfare recipients. Making a living should not be dependent on filling in forms and begging from the state.

I’ve Been Premature, Ooo Err

Apparently I have jumped the gun somewhat. For the past few weeks I have been banging on about the French Referendum and what was going to happen. It seems that Officially the campaign has only just started.

France yesterday declared the official start of its referendum campaign on the European Union's constitutional treaty, setting off a frenzy of politicking that will cost the state €130m.

€130 Million. I’ve heard of buying yourself out of slavery, but buying yourself in? And by the way it will cost the state nothing, it will cost the French Taxpayer, including those who are against. Now the odds are razor thin.

The Yes campaign has emerged as the firm favourite at bookmakers. Betfair, the London-based betting exchange, has installed the Yes vote as the 1/2 favourite. The No vote is quoted at 7/4

No doubt Jacques will get his way in the end, but since Fox Hunting was banned, watching French Politics is the only decent blood sport available.

Who Is Making Barroso Uncomfortable

If you want details of just who is calling Baroso to account, take a look here:

What ever else people are saying about UKIP, Nigel Farage has been one of the best MEPs of this parliament.

Davis For Leader

I have a post up on The David Davis for Leader Blog.

New Tax

Thanks to Jacques Chirac, that defender of the iniquitous CAP, we have a new EU tax. Its proceeds will be used as aid to Africa, no doubt "From the EU". Agricultural reform would be so much more valuable to Africans but it will never happen because that would be bad for France. I guess this means no more Red Lines on tax eh Tony?

McShame Waxes Lyrical

Europhiles often believe they are better people than us because they are so idealistic, whilst we criticise minute details of their grand master plan. For our part we cannot understand why their arguments never move beyond grand visions, or take into account the people that do not share their ideals. McShame, the former Europe minister is waxing lyrical about his vision of Europe in the Observer.

The next 18 months will see the destiny of Europe settled for a generation or more.

I assume he means if we vote yes. If we vote no, he and his friends will makes sure we have another chance to settle the destiny of Europe for a generation or more.

On 29 May, the French will vote in the most important referendum for Britain in half a century.

More important than ours?

Many express the banal view that Europe should simply be a free-trade area when the very birth of Europe was profoundly political, a response to the Second World War and the wars that preceded it.

That may be so, but all of our leaders have pretended otherwise. Its almost like we were long term platonic friends but have been told we are to be married, and that apparently was the plan all along.

The Europe I knew as a student at Oxford nearly four decades ago was one divided by communism, with three Mediterranean countries gripped by fascist regimes and a thousand and one petty immigration and customs jobsworths making movement of people, goods and ideas around Europe a pain, not a pleasure.

Now its just full of Health and Safety jobsworths. Perhaps he hasn’t noticed, but travel and living in other countries has become more common all over the world. I admit the EU has made some aspects of this easier, but did this have to come with the Working Hours Directive attached?

Never in history have so many Europeans moved from poverty to comfort, from dictatorship to freedom

Which we celebrate by creating a totally uncompetitive framework for business so that we can have more Europeans move from Comfort to Poverty than ever before. Funny how the same thing is happening the world over without the interference from failed European politicians.

Sadly, it was the Conservatives who were the European party between 1945 and 1990.

Very sadly for a party supposedly based on principals of individualism.

The transformation of the Conservatives into an anti-EU party is a reversion to a traditional Toryism of support for the Corn Laws, for imperial preference, and splendid isolationism.

The corn laws, in case you have forgotten were designed to protect British farmers from competition. They made food for the urban poor much more expensive but made rich landowners much better off. The nearest modern equivalent is the Common Agricultural Policy, forced upon us byt the EU that McShame loves so much.

The (Referendum) campaign will have to be cool, calm and full of a passionate rationalism to take on the isolationist arguments of those hostile to Europe.

We are not hostile to Europe, we are hostile to collectivism.

The treaty will have to be explained for what it is. It is not a constitution and it has been a major error to call it that.

Funny how we half agree on that one. It doesn’t include much that should be in a constitution, most worryingly, change can happen one way without amendments but not the other. On the other hand it contains much that would not normally be in a constitution. However it will bind us exactly like a constitution, so these points are merely academic. If the treaty is rejected by the France, our role is apparently very important.

Only Britain can heal the wounds of a Europe that will have seen five years' work voted down the drain.

The Soviet Unions collapse was 80 years work down the drain, only Putin worries about that. If you think that just because many people spent much time on something it must have value, you must lack a great deal of world experience.

On the Record

An intelligent comment by the Quisling Labour MEP Stephen Hughes on The BBC’s The Record Europe Elimination of the opt out will only effect 9% of the population. Supposing we were to say to the esteemed Mr Hughes that we were going to close all the Mosques in Britain. He would quite rightly get upset and babble on about freedom. But our Trump card would be: Muslims only make up 3% of the population. To which he would correctly reply, so what. So when exactly is it acceptable to remove the freedom of a group of people, simply because they make up a minority? In addition, the fact that only 9% of the country’s workers will be effected rather undermines the logic for the law in the first place. Anyone who doesn’t want to work more than 48 hours can quite easily find a job where it is not required. After all 91% of the working population already have.

French Yes ‘will boost Europe's economy'

Solving Europe’s economic doldrums is simple apparently.

Europe's stuttering economy will get a much-needed boost if France votes Yes in next week's referendum on the European Union constitution, according to the EU's monetary affairs chief, Joaquín Almunia.

Now I am no expert of the calibre of Mr Alumnia, but I am convinced that labour reform would be more effective and longer lasting. After all the constitution casts in stone the stupidity that is the European Social Model. Not the most rational way to boost the European economy.

Anti Clarke Movement

Someone else has responded to the news that Clarke is considering standing for the leadership.

John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, said Mr Clarke did not have the support of the grassroots of the party because of his views on Europe. He said ordinary members would be "sick in their stomach" to see Mr Clarke share a platform with Tony Blair to argue for a "yes" vote in the EU constitution referendum.

The disaster that was IDS was a direct result of Conservative MPs selecting as one of the options a man whose beliefs are so much at odds with much of his party. I’m sure that many who voted for IDS knew that it was a mistake but couldn’t bring themselves to vote the other way. Clarke as leader would spit the party, especially with a referendum coming up.

Traitor

One thing you expect from British MEPs is their support of British interests, whatever their eufanatic views. After the Quislings from Labour supported EU effoerts to remove our right to control our own working lives, the Lib Dems have gone one step further. Treason.

Oh Dear

The last thing we need right now in the Conservative Party, is a leadership candidate who is Pro-EU. As most party activists are Eurosceptic, should such a candidate win, expect large numbers of people to switch back to UKIP. Its such a preposterous notion though. Surely no Europhile with zero chance of winning the contest would stand. Oh Dear the Bad Penny is back. When This Man is obviously the one we want, why even bother with a contest.

Crazy and Immoral

Yes Blog has more calm and rational comment as we have come to expect from them. On the subject of CFP and immigration they have this to say:

However, the Tories gained almost no ground since the 2001 general election so there is no risk that these crazy and immoral policies might actually be implemented.

It’s a shame the Conservatives couldn’t have used such a slogan. With their boring image, I’m sure the idea that they can be crazy and immoral would have gained many more voters.

9 Down, 16 To Go

Following ratification in Germany’s Bundestag on Thursday, 9 countries have now accepted the Constitution. Seven EU countries have now formally confirmed the constitution - Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Spain’s electorate have accepted it, but it has yet to pass the Senate, whilst in Germany the upper house is to have a vote on it later this month. Its not a bad tally for the Federasts, but we need just one success, our opponents need 25.

Retrial

The retrial of Abdullah Ocalan is a hot topic in today’s press. In response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, he is to have another trial. Unfortunately all the major sources of news are confused over what to call him and have made errors in the story. The Times and The Guardian called him a Guerrilla, the Telegraph, IHT and CNN called him a Rebel, the FT called him a Kurdish Leader. The BBC combined these to make him a Rebel Leader. Their choice of words is unfortunate, James Dean was a rebel, Talabani is a Kurdish Leader. As someone who has been unfortunate enough to see and hear a couple of the huge number of atrocities committed by his followers, I am quite willing to settle the confusion here. Ocalan is a Terrorist.

Federast

I recently picked up the word Federast from someone elses Blog. I am now quoted on Wilkipedia as a source of this word. To whoever I stole the word from I'm sorry, I honestly can't remember where it came from.

The EUABC

If you have ever wondered at the strange language used by Eurocrats, The EUABC - An EU dictionary for Internet users, could be the thing for you. Designed to make the EU more understandable to ordinary mortals, the man behind it is Jens-Peter Bonde, Eurosceptic Danish MEP. Included on the site is a Reader-friendly edition of the EU Constitution, with highlights, comments in the margin, plus a great index to help you navigate. The same Mr Bonde has some great comments on the constitution:

For every reading, I realise that I know even less. The more I know, the less I know, and I am deeply impressed by all the people who write so jubilant about the simple Constitution. Apparently, they can do something I can't.

Perhaps Peter Preston should speak to him and revise his sneering comments about the document’s opponents. On the quality of the treaty:

The first part of the Constitution is quite competent, but still superficial work, fairly readable. The second part with the so called fundamental rights is more a lottery, where it is up to the judges in Luxembourg to decide, what will be current fundamental rights. The third part is hard-to-reach and filled with Orwellian language, where the words mean something different than what we usually use them for.

Remember that this was the treaty that was supposed to simplify things.

German Views

What do the two most important German Politicians think about EU integration?

"European monetary union has to be complemented by a political union - that was always the presumption of Europeans including those who made active politics before us. . . What we need to Europeanise is everything to do with economic and financial policy. In this area we need much more, let's call it co-ordination and co-operation to suit British feelings, than we had before. That hangs together with the success of the euro."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, The Times, London, 22 February 2002

"Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age"

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, The Guardian, London, 26 November, 1998 Team Europe has a large number of other quotes from a diverse array of Germans. If you want to understand their viewpoint, check them out.

Davis For Leader

I am not familiar enough with all the candidates yet to throw all my weight behind a Conservative Leadership contender, but going by my limited knowledge, Davis does seem to be the best option. I want to see a leader that is capable of renewing the Conservative cause, not a ZaNu Labour Clone. Now Fellow Serf, Wat Tyler has started a blog promoting his cause. We were almost invisible in the Genral Election, maybe we can have a bigger impact here.

Now they Know why we Whinge

Comment from far away is often of greater interest than that closer to home. So it is with great interest that I read an Australian’s view of our Collectivist Experiment. On the Subject of the current alliance against the constitution between right and left:

Those on the conservative Right are generally suspicious of centrally planned solutions, particularly on vexed issues such as open borders and immigration. The Left likes central planning but only if it gets to choose the plan.

With resistance from every side, and an Anti-Story to suit all tastes, the EU could be in trouble.

This odd alliance between Left and Right might mean that the EU will become the latest in a long line of lessons on how grand utopian experiments fail.

Far from the prevailing social conditioning, there is no propaganda machine to remind you what it is all for.

And you only have to flick through the preamble to get a feel for the hopelessly utopian aims of the EU.

And a confused Aussie wonders why we do it.

Europe has had its fair share of bad experiences with central planning and authoritarianism. Take your pick of left or right-wing "isms". Fascism. Nazism. Communism. Given that history, it's odd that Europeans have opted for more central planning under the banner of EUism.

The Aussies criticise us at every opportunity but maybe they are starting to understand what it is we have to whinge about.

Our Polish Allies

The more I hear of Poles and Poland, the greater sense of affinity I feel with them. Compare the following statements.

Alejandro Cercas, the Spanish Socialist MEP “We have today started a long march in favour of our social Europe. Our European citizens want sensible and reasonable working hours and they don't want social dumping in any part of the EU.” Stephen Hughes Quisling British Socialist MEP “An opt-out from a health and safety directive is wrong in principle.” Polish MEP Konrad Szymanski "Today's vote is a black day for European entrepreneurship. They have decided to impose the worst legacy of the French and German economies on those countries which do not want that, such as Poland, Britain and Ireland."

More power to the Poles. Pushing hard for EU expansion has perhaps been the UK’s sole success in our long and painful membership. On the other hand, our Spanish friend’s use of the term Long March, is unfortunate, referring as it does to Mao’s take over of China. Considering the Tens of Millions that perished as a direct result of the success of that march, he could have chosen his words a little better. At least its nice to know where he is coming from though.

Sugaring the Pill

The IHT has a terrible idea for making the EU more acceptable to the likes of me:

The European Union devotes just €130 million, a year to its culture and media programs. The new cultural lobby wants the budget tripled, with the new funds devoted largely to spreading Europe's cultures within Europe. For many Euro-skeptics, greater cultural affinity may sugar the pill of political and economic unity.

Eurosceptics often rail against the utter waste of Money and the propagandist approach of the EU. Large sums of money spent on projects to Spread Europe's cultures within Europe are hardly going to impress us. It is true that we share a rich cultural heritage, how that relates to European MEPs having the right to tell me how many hours I can work is a little beyond my comprehension.

Anti EU Lefties

A subject I brought up a couple o days back, which we all must bear in mind is those on the left that are Eurosceptic. The latest news from A Left Wing Eurosceptic Group reinforces the importance of this group:

A new poll has shown that Labour voters make up the single largest group amongst those who say they will vote ‘no’, with Tory voters making up the second largest group.

EU Serf’s usual ranting about individual freedom is unlikely to impress many of this group of people. The No campaign being too closely associated with the Conservative party will also not impress them too much. It is therefore imperative to get a good mix of spokespeople to get our message across.

Opting Out

MEPs are set to reject the UK’s working time directive opt out.

MEPs normally follow the line taken by their specialist committee and the Socialist group - including British Labour MEPs - is expected to lead the vote against the British opt-out on Wednesday, joined by Green and far-left MEPs.

The British Government thinks it can block any changes:

The UK can draw on support from several member states from the former Soviet bloc that joined the EU last year who are worried about the impact of stricter labour rules.

Whilst the Guardian thinks it is time we accepted the changes, which are supported by many in Britain.

A survey last year found that 55% of Britons wanted the opt-out to be abolished.

Which is a totally irrelevant piece of information. If a poll said that 55% of Brits found Garden Gnomes to be offensive, would the Guardian want them to be banned? I suspect not. The number of hours that I or anyone else works is of no concern to anyone but me and my employer. An opinion that is seconded by Tim

Turkish Dislike

Even the Turks are slowly turning against the EU.

A poll, taken for the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), found that 63 per cent of Turks support the country's accession to the EU, compared with 70 per cent earlier in the year and as much as 75 per cent late last year.

That’s still a big majority in favour, but a very swift decline. Unfortunately it is driven by nationalist sentiment, rather than any critique of the way in which the EU works.

Flattened by Holland

The Dutch may well be the heroes of the Cause of Independence :

A survey by pollster Maurice de Hond publicised on Saturday showed an increase from 40 to 42 per cent in support for the No side, while the Yes camp lost one point to 38 per cent.

In the face of this hostility, the Dutch government has been doing what exactly?

In Brussels there has been growing dismay at the almost complete lack of a Yes campaign in the Netherlands.

Who says that apathy is such a bad thing?

Working Time

As the Quisling MEP’s from Britain’s Labour party help destroy the right of British workers to choose their own working hours, there could be another ridiculous addition to the rules.

MEPs in the Employment Committee want the right of individual workers to opt out of the maximum 48 hour working week to be scrapped three years after the new working hours directive enters into force. They also want hours "on-call" to count as working time in most cases.

Without the addition income from regular periods of being on call, I have no idea how my Father would have been able to support our family as we were growing up. Being on call meant being at home with the family most of the time, but getting paid extra for it. As the rules were supposed to protect health and safety, I fail to see how it can be unsafe to be paid for being mostly at home, in addition to regular working hours.

Implementing the Constitution

Now many of you may be under the false impression that unless we vote yes next year, the constitution will just remain an expense exercise in committee work. You would be wrong:

Is all EU legislation compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights? A new system will soon systematically screen proposed legislation for compatibility with fundamental rights. The new Commissioners Group on Fundamental Rights, Anti-discrimination and Equal Opportunities, set up in October last year, will ensure that the results of this screening procedure are taken into account.

Its not yet legally in force, probably never will be, but they are implementing it anyway. Did anyone say accountability?

The European Peace

From the European Commission’s comments on VE day.

European integration has changed the face of Europe. It has been driven by the common wish of European people: freedom and lasting peace instead of war, replacing conflict, mistrust and hate with understanding and respect; and all of this backed up by institutions to support both our shared destiny and our rich diversity.

The highlighted sentence is something that I agree with, which is why I disagree with the idea that the EU kept the peace. (I fail to understand the addition of the word freedom however). Confused? The EU was only possible because the nations of Europe were desperate not to go to war again. It is a symptom of the wish for peace not the cause of that peace. That said, future disintegration could simply reflect the fact that people across the EU no longer believe that it is necessary for maintaining the peace.

Scott's Back

After a refreshing break, Scott is back bashing the Indy and the Guardian. If you are not familiar with the Daily Ablution, I'm afraid you are missing out.

Sweet Talking on Subsidies

Agricultural reform is a major priority. Which is why we have this:

A German plea on Monday for gradual reform gave a foretaste of the bitter struggle facing the European Union's planned changes to its sugar subsidies.

Just for your information, Germany is one of Fifteen Countries on the pro-reform side. I’d hate to think what the anti-reform brigade is thinking.

Direct Democracy

Apparently the Constitution will bring more direct democracy. So says our Margot.

The constitution gives more direct power to the people… If you manage to collect one million signatures in a significant number of EU countries, you can ask the commission to propose a new law or policy,” she said.

They can always say no though. Besides a system where we can block legislation would be far more useful than proposing legislation, given the type of Meddling that usually comes from Brussels. Imagine what kind of groups might be able to get the requisite signatures and the agreement of the European Commission. Try proposing a liberal law that rolls back EU powers. Thanks but no thanks would be the reply. Offer instead an increase in Brussels powers and you can bet it would be presented to national governments. To me it sounds like a lever to override national governments, by using apparent democratic legitimacy. Seeing as such initiatives are likely to come from unrepresentative lobby groups, it’s not so much power to the people as power to the commission.

Labour Resistance

Despite Official Government support for the constitution, not all of Labour’s MPs are pliant yes men.

Ian Davidson wants an early referendum plus party funding for his 'No' campaign.

Not only is he against, he wants the Governing party to fund his campaign.

He wants a party referendum to determine how much goes to which campaign.

That would be quite something if the Labour Party were to give money to support the No side. For us on the Liberal Anglo Saxon side of the No debate, we have to work out how to work together with people who are normally our political rivals. The potential for splits and infighting is enormous, whilst the Yes Camp are eagerly awaiting such self destructive behaviour. It calls for a large measure of restraint from all of us.

Poland Joins the Revolution

Now Poland is set to join the Flat Tax revolution.

Civic Platform (PO) leader Jan Rokita promises the party will adopt a flat tax rate. The PO has a draft bill ready for a 15-percent flat PIT rate without deductions. The party hopes to pass the bill before the end of November, in order for the bill to come into force in 2006.

Lets just hope the Conservatives take note of this economic common sense sweeping the newest EU members. It would be one hell of a way to fight against plunderer Brown.

The Dream Under Threat.

Peter Preston like most of those who write for that government subsidised rag, is a Statist with a visceral hatred for free choice. In such capacity his love for the EU and capacity to create imaginative links between it and everything else know no bounds.

Twelve months from now, give or take the odd let or hindrance, Britain faces a choice to put last Thursday's in the shade.

Something that I have to agree with. Since our elected representatives are unaware of the constitutional duty not to tie a future Parliament and this treaty is for life not just for 5 years, he is completely right. But the beloved treaty is under threat from unscrupulous politicians:

The new Conservative leader will see any constitutional vote as a prime chance to drive a stake into Labour's heart. Instant credibility, with no instant reckoning.

That the Conservatives also disagree with both the concept and the contents in principle, is ignored, it spoils the argument. Conservatives will oppose the treaty on principle. Any collateral damage to the government will be a bonus. Our Future Prime Minister, Mr Prudent, is far more correct in his thinking:

Minister Brown, for all the euro doubts and sorrows, knows where his future lies. He may take his holidays in Cape Cod, not Tuscany, but he can't anchor HMS Hope and Glory off Long Island. We are where we are, what we are.

Which is the Irrelevant Geographical Argument. Most Eurosceptics are far from suggesting that we become a 51st state. This is a straw man thrown up to be knocked down by the Eurofanatics. If we were to take this argument at face value, we should have invited Hitler into Britain with open arms. After all, nearly all of Europe was following his ideals at the time. We had no excuse to remain free like the USA, after all we were part of Europe.

Is the constitutional treaty consensually perfect? Of course not.

Another empty argument, which tries to minimise criticism by admitting that the document is not perfect. That it is a total dogs breakfast and has no right to be even discussed let alone accepted is wilfully ignored.

The Tories don't like it because - like the Sun and the Mail - they haven't read it, let alone tried to understand.

Call your opponent stupid, that’s the height of sophistication is it not? If they haven’t read it, it is because few people in their right minds would want to read a three hundred page document purposely written in language that obscures the meaning. On the other hand, if you did not understand a contract would you sign it? Why should a constitution be any different? As someone who has read it I am a little incredulous that anyone else who has done likewise should be in favour.

Be clear: if you want an economy going to pot and a sense of politicians really losing control, just think about life after treaty rejection. And if you're a new Tory in the frame, fancying your chances, weighing tax cuts against immigration controls in some grotty equation, just think of the mess you'll inherit.

Which can generate two responses. Does he really believe that our economy’s strength depends on acceptance of the charter of fundamental rights? And. If our economy really does go to pot following a rejection, what kind of idiot political elite tied our success so tightly to a completely unnecessary and badly written treaty? Why should Conservatives support the treaty?

Because the Tories, if they pause to think, have been Mr 30% ever since they got the sceptic superbug.

To which the only dignified response is to laugh until my trousers fall off. Does he really believe that being Eurosceptic, one of the few areas where the Conservatives have been more in tune with the electorate than their competitors, has lead to their recent electoral failure? Or is he trying to undermine the Conservative revival by giving support to Ken Clarke and his ilk? Should the French not beat us to the punch, have no doubt Mr Preston, the Country, the Conservative party and individuals throughout Europe will have gained a better future at the expense of the New European Imperialists. Nothing under the Sun could persuade me to vote yes for that treaty, and that includes your little stories Mr Preston. I suspect that the majority of my fellow Brits will think the same.