The Government is literally all over the place on the revised Constitutional Treaty. It's difficult to keep up with the multitude of different positions they've had - of which the latest Brown-Blair "rows" are just the latest example.
As Lord Owen wrote in the Evening Standard yesterday "We need to hear again the convoluted illogicality of how our diplomats explain why constitutional changes were thought not to need a referendum in 2003, then how a referendum was promised in 2004, even if the French or Dutch voted no, only for the pledge to be withdrawn and replaced with the promise of a referendum in the 2005 general election - only in 2007 for Blair to say no referendum once again. Perhaps Gordon Brown will have enough sense to realise that the British people cannot be treated with contempt like this."
If that is the case, no-one seems to have told the Prime Minister's spokesman. At the press briefing yesterday afternoon he claimed that there was no need to hold a referendum this time because the name had been changed and the flag and anthem were being deleted.
According to the Downing Street website:
"Asked what it was in 2005 that required a referendum, and what were the elements of the constitution, the PMOS replied they were elements such as flags, national anthems, etc."
Which is funny, because we're sure there were some more important elements in the Constitution than the flag and the anthem... The EU President and the EU Foreign Minister perhaps?
As someone from the Commission helpfully told Le Figaro yesterday:
"It’s no great loss! The European flag already exists anyway..."
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Monday, 18 June 2007
CBI turns against new EU treaty
A few extracts from CBI Director General Richard Lambert's speech at an event organised by pro-euro groups Centre for European Reform and Business for New Europe, 18 June:
“After talking to hundreds of companies around the UK in the last twelve months here’s my view on how British business views treaty changes, which are going to be discussed this weekend. The fact is the subject almost never comes up. Most companies I’ve talked to think it’s pretty much irrelevant. The reasons for that are pretty plain – if they think of treaty change at all they think of it more in terms of risks than opportunities. They see few potential benefits for business and some potential hazards.”
“And some business people ask the question: do we need these treaties anyway? The failure of the draft Constitution has not has catastrophic consequences, the eurozone economy has been rising at its briskest pace over the last nine months for the first time in some years… the union continues to function, despite the accession of twelve more countries over the last three years. The institutional framework continues to operate, the European Court has not collapsed into chaos, laws get passed, decisions get made. So the question people ask is: isn’t just this all just a total waste of time, a distraction from the real big issues which the union has to face: the current failing trade round, budget reform, energy security and climate change”
“But being on the margins of the treaty change debate does not mean that business is detached from European debates as a whole – far from it.”
“Until the matter is resolved one way or another, the treaty debate is not going to go away. Europe’s leaders will just go on gazing at their navels, engage in endless - and sometimes irritable – internal debate, ignoring the big issues and opportunities that Europe is facing in the big world.”
“The decisions to be taken over the weekend – if a deal is struck among the member states – those decisions will be intensely political in character and there is no political consensus in British business about what kind of trade offs and compromises might be acceptable next weekend, or about how far Mr Blair and Mr Brown could go without promising a referendum. No consensus – so I’m not going to go down that road this morning.”
“The conclusion is that there is a window of opportunity here – but it’s not as a result of treaty change, but through the shifting courses of European politics. For business I think that means getting more involved in European debates where they matter. Being clear about what would make the single market effective, being clear that its member states who need to raise their game and being clear about where we want Europe to act and not to act.” Focussing on those areas where collective action will do more to further Europe’s position of the global stage than if we just go plodding along in our own merry way. I think it’s these issues that the business community really needs to get stuck into, and let’s hope that this will be possible once the dust that is probably going to be raised in the next few weeks has started to settle.”
This is a major blow to the Government. The CBI previously campaigned for the euro, and the Government were hoping that they could hide behind the CBI on the new version of the constitutional treaty. But it looks like the CBI has wisely decided to steer clear of taking flak for the Government. Given that the new version of the text would still cut Britain’s power to block legislation by 30%, and inevitably mean even more costly EU regulation – it is not surprising that the CBI members have “little zeal” for the new version of the constitutional treaty.
“After talking to hundreds of companies around the UK in the last twelve months here’s my view on how British business views treaty changes, which are going to be discussed this weekend. The fact is the subject almost never comes up. Most companies I’ve talked to think it’s pretty much irrelevant. The reasons for that are pretty plain – if they think of treaty change at all they think of it more in terms of risks than opportunities. They see few potential benefits for business and some potential hazards.”
“And some business people ask the question: do we need these treaties anyway? The failure of the draft Constitution has not has catastrophic consequences, the eurozone economy has been rising at its briskest pace over the last nine months for the first time in some years… the union continues to function, despite the accession of twelve more countries over the last three years. The institutional framework continues to operate, the European Court has not collapsed into chaos, laws get passed, decisions get made. So the question people ask is: isn’t just this all just a total waste of time, a distraction from the real big issues which the union has to face: the current failing trade round, budget reform, energy security and climate change”
“But being on the margins of the treaty change debate does not mean that business is detached from European debates as a whole – far from it.”
“Until the matter is resolved one way or another, the treaty debate is not going to go away. Europe’s leaders will just go on gazing at their navels, engage in endless - and sometimes irritable – internal debate, ignoring the big issues and opportunities that Europe is facing in the big world.”
“The decisions to be taken over the weekend – if a deal is struck among the member states – those decisions will be intensely political in character and there is no political consensus in British business about what kind of trade offs and compromises might be acceptable next weekend, or about how far Mr Blair and Mr Brown could go without promising a referendum. No consensus – so I’m not going to go down that road this morning.”
“The conclusion is that there is a window of opportunity here – but it’s not as a result of treaty change, but through the shifting courses of European politics. For business I think that means getting more involved in European debates where they matter. Being clear about what would make the single market effective, being clear that its member states who need to raise their game and being clear about where we want Europe to act and not to act.” Focussing on those areas where collective action will do more to further Europe’s position of the global stage than if we just go plodding along in our own merry way. I think it’s these issues that the business community really needs to get stuck into, and let’s hope that this will be possible once the dust that is probably going to be raised in the next few weeks has started to settle.”
This is a major blow to the Government. The CBI previously campaigned for the euro, and the Government were hoping that they could hide behind the CBI on the new version of the constitutional treaty. But it looks like the CBI has wisely decided to steer clear of taking flak for the Government. Given that the new version of the text would still cut Britain’s power to block legislation by 30%, and inevitably mean even more costly EU regulation – it is not surprising that the CBI members have “little zeal” for the new version of the constitutional treaty.
Saturday, 16 June 2007
Blair for president of Europe!
Blair has been endorsed as a future President of Europe by Nicolas Sarkozy, according to the FT. And the non-denial-denials coming out of Downing Street this morning are about as strong as a wilted lettuce-leaf.
Well - he has to pay the bills somehow, and that house in Connaught Square isn't cheap.
No-one has really thought about it yet, but what is the 'package' for the new President going to look like? It would have to be bigger than Barroso's surely - after all we can't have the impression that the civil servants are running the whole show (hint: they are).
Jose's basic is about £180,000 a year, and when he retires he can expect a chunky £120,000 a year pension. So no worries about turning up the gas fire a bit then.
He also gets about £27,000 for accommodation and £7000 for entertaining. There may also be some kind of daily allowance.
Also nice - is the 24-hour chauffeur. You get to pick out a car worth up to £75,000. Barroso, being a red-blooded type, has plumped for an environmentally-devastating VW 4x4 Touareg. Blair would presumably want something a bit greener.
Eventually of course the goal is to have a directly elected US-style president. Indeed, Sarkozy backed a directly elected EU President during the French elections, signing a call for one from the NGO Europanova.
Then there will be the most awesome elections. Imagine the auction of contradictory promises that a European Presidential candidate will need to make to win: a promise of sausages for all in Poland, and compulsory vegetarianism in Holland. A super-sensible calvinist clampdown on drinking in Sweden, and a pledge to introduce a two-drink minimum for driving on the roads of southern Italy.
Only one man can make these kind of paradoxical pledges. We'll certainly be backing Blair against Chirac in 2012.
Well - he has to pay the bills somehow, and that house in Connaught Square isn't cheap.
No-one has really thought about it yet, but what is the 'package' for the new President going to look like? It would have to be bigger than Barroso's surely - after all we can't have the impression that the civil servants are running the whole show (hint: they are).
Jose's basic is about £180,000 a year, and when he retires he can expect a chunky £120,000 a year pension. So no worries about turning up the gas fire a bit then.
He also gets about £27,000 for accommodation and £7000 for entertaining. There may also be some kind of daily allowance.
Also nice - is the 24-hour chauffeur. You get to pick out a car worth up to £75,000. Barroso, being a red-blooded type, has plumped for an environmentally-devastating VW 4x4 Touareg. Blair would presumably want something a bit greener.
Eventually of course the goal is to have a directly elected US-style president. Indeed, Sarkozy backed a directly elected EU President during the French elections, signing a call for one from the NGO Europanova.
Then there will be the most awesome elections. Imagine the auction of contradictory promises that a European Presidential candidate will need to make to win: a promise of sausages for all in Poland, and compulsory vegetarianism in Holland. A super-sensible calvinist clampdown on drinking in Sweden, and a pledge to introduce a two-drink minimum for driving on the roads of southern Italy.
Only one man can make these kind of paradoxical pledges. We'll certainly be backing Blair against Chirac in 2012.
Friday, 15 June 2007
when bombers meet bureaucrats
Ludicrous comment of the day has to go to Lib Dem Euro MP Sarah Ludford:
"While the Brussels machine is deadlocked by the search for 27-country unanimity, the terrorists and criminals are free to bomb their way across Europe"
Oooooh, I bet Bin Laden is quaking in his boots at the thought of more QMV. This, remember, from the organisation that gave us a "non-emotive lexicon" for discussing terrorism.
International agreements are obviously important - but what exactly is it that the EU can't do because of unanimity? To pretend that anyone who questions giving the EU more powers is the "murderers friend" is a typically ludicrous euro-argument.
"While the Brussels machine is deadlocked by the search for 27-country unanimity, the terrorists and criminals are free to bomb their way across Europe"
Oooooh, I bet Bin Laden is quaking in his boots at the thought of more QMV. This, remember, from the organisation that gave us a "non-emotive lexicon" for discussing terrorism.
International agreements are obviously important - but what exactly is it that the EU can't do because of unanimity? To pretend that anyone who questions giving the EU more powers is the "murderers friend" is a typically ludicrous euro-argument.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Merkel memo full text
Introduction
This report from the German presidency is a response to the mandate which was given it by the European Council at its meeting in June 2006. As requested at the time, the Presidency, in the light of very extensive consultations held over the last six months, provides an assessment of the state of discussion with regard to the treaty reform process and explores possible ways forward.
After two years of uncertainty, following the problems encountered in the process of ratification of the Constitutional Treaty, it is clear that there is now a general desire to settle this issue and move on. All Member States recognise that further uncertainty about the treaty reform process would jeopardise the
Settling this issue quickly is therefore a priority. This was agreed when Heads of state and Government, together with the President of the European Parliament and the President of the Commission, met in
The way forward clearly needs to take into account the concerns expressed by citizens during the ratification process on the future direction of the European Union and the effects of globalisation on its core values and policies. At the same time there is a very strong demand for the
Overall assessment
In line with the mandate given to it in June 2006, the Presidency has conducted extensive bilateral consultations with the member states as will as the European Parliament, both at the level of designated “focal points” and between the President of the European Council and her opposite numbers. In addition to these bilateral contacts, the Presidency organised a meeting of “focal points” in
These consultations have proved very useful in giving the Presidency a clear idea of the various concerns of individual member states.
The issues raised during the consultations can be grouped into a number of themes:
A different approach on structure
A certain number of Member States underlined the importance of avoiding the impression which might be given by the symbolism and the title 'Constitution' that the nature of the
"Such an approach is not incompatible with the demand from those Member States which have already ratified, that as much of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty as possible should be preserved. They are ready to consider the alternative method of treaty change... They have made it very clear however that this would represent a major concession. They insist on the need to preserve the substance of the innovations agreed upon in the 2004 IGC, and to ensure as far as possible the readability and simplicity of the new Treaty.
Reinforcing the capacity of the Union to act, whilst preserving the identity of the Member States
It is generally recognised that a strengthening of the institutions will help reinforce the capacity of the Union to act, and that the Union therefore has every interest in ensuring that the current Treaties are adapted in order to introduce the set of institutional reforms agreed in the 2004 IGC.
At the same time, there is concern to underline the respect for the identity of the member states and to introduce greater clarity over the delimitation and definition of competences of the Union and the
Some delegations have requested that the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be removed from the Treaty. Others strongly oppose this move. Most of the latter could however accept it, provided that the legally binding character of the Charter is preserved by means of a cross-reference in the body of the Treaty.
Addressing other concerns
A few delegations have suggested that in several cases the text of the treaties should be amended in order to reflect more recent developments. Many delegations would be ready to examine such amendments if considered helpful by others and provided that no new competences are conferred upon the
The way forward
On the basis of its assessment of the positions of different delegations, the Presidency recommends that the June European Council agree to the rapid convening of an IGC. It suggests that the European Council give a precise and comprehensive mandate (on structure and content) to the IGC, thus allowing it to complete its work on a nww treaty by the end of the year.
The Presidency proposes a return to the classical method of treaty change. The IGC would therefore be asked to adopt a Reform Treaty amending the existing treaties rather than repealing them. The Treaty on European Union as modified would keep its present name, while the Treaty establishing the European Community would become the “Treaty on the functioning of the Union”, containing all the detailed implementing provisions, including the legal bases. Both treaties would have the same value. The
The mandate for the IGC should set out how the measures agreed in the 2004 IGC with a view to a more capable and democratic Union should be inserted into the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the
- The question of the symbols and the primacy of EU law
- Possible terminological changes
- The treatment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
- The specificity of the CFSP
- The delimitation of competences between the EU and the Member States
- The role of national parliaments
Conclusion
The Presidency submits this report to delegations as a basis for reaching agreement on the way forward at the European Council on 21-22 June 2007.
Wednesday, 13 June 2007
Freedom EU style
We were over in Brussels yesterday testing the temperature before the big summit next week. When EU leaders arrive the entire area around the Council and Commission buildings will be fenced off so that the great unwashed can't get near to the politicians and journalists inside.
But never let it be said that our masters in Brussels don't run a benevolent regime. They have set up a "freedom of expression" zone just up the road where people will be allowed to protest. The catch is that any protest needs to get authorisation from the Brussels police.
As one Brussels punter put it : "freedom of expression... but only with permission".
But never let it be said that our masters in Brussels don't run a benevolent regime. They have set up a "freedom of expression" zone just up the road where people will be allowed to protest. The catch is that any protest needs to get authorisation from the Brussels police.
As one Brussels punter put it : "freedom of expression... but only with permission".
Blogging about
After our first posting on Conservative Home on Monday one cynical commentator questioned whether we'd become an extension of the Tory party.
No doubt the same reader will accuse us of joining up to Labour because Neil has written a piece on the Guardian website today...
For those of you who aren't avid Con Home readers, here are our posts from Tuesday (on the Government's red lines on the new Constitution) and Wednesday (on why the treaty would be bad for business).
No doubt the same reader will accuse us of joining up to Labour because Neil has written a piece on the Guardian website today...
For those of you who aren't avid Con Home readers, here are our posts from Tuesday (on the Government's red lines on the new Constitution) and Wednesday (on why the treaty would be bad for business).
Monday, 11 June 2007
Constitution debate hots up
Blogging is likely to be a bit light on this site for the next week, but we will be putting up a series of posts on Conservative Home on the revised Constitutional Treaty.
Check out the first installment here.
Check out the first installment here.
Friday, 8 June 2007
She lied and lied and lied (we're not exaggerating)
It's often said that one of Tony Blair's best assets is his skill at acting. The feigned sincerity, the lump in the throat and -of course- the comedy mockney accent - y'know.
Margaret Beckett's performance in front of the EU scrutiny committee yesterday suggests that his legacy will survive after all when he steps down.
The session began with the Labour Committee Chairman - Michael Connarty - saying that the current negotiations on the EU Constitution were taking place against a "background of non-transparency". This, claimed Beckett, was Berlin's fault. It is the way they wanted to conduct negotiations. Nothing she could do about it.
She then denied that the questionnaire that Merkel had sent to every EU government had any importance ( the letter which set out how they would make "presentational changes... without changing the legal substance" of the Constitution). She said it had “not played any real part in the discussions” on the new treaty.
When asked to give a bit more detail on these discussions she argued -puzzlingly -that there hadn't been any. "Nothing that you could really call negotiations has taken place."
She told MPs that the idea that the Constitution was being resurrected had been made up by the media. She declared that "There is nothing on the table" and that other countries were "in denial" about the Constitution's rejection.
When Bill Cash dared to suggest that she might not have a firm grip on the negotiations, she replied tersely “It’s not that I don’t know what’s going on, it’s just that nothing is going on”.
She carried on: “I’m afraid Mr Cash, you say to me ‘We know there are party-to-party negotiations”. There are not. There have not been. There has been a process whereby member states are occasionally invited to give some views. There have not been negotiations.”
Cash: “So there is something going on” Beckett: [shouting] “There is nothing going on”.
She even refused to be drawn into whether she would support individual proposals from the old Constitution. “Until it is clear that a proposal is being but forward and in what form I will reserve my comments until something is practically proposed. And at the moment nothing is proposed.”
But then the cracks started to appear. First she confused her own interests with the interests of the country as a whole - “I believe it is very much in the interests of those who wish to see British national interests protected and preserved that we do not carry out our negotiations in public” [pause] “Especially when they haven’t started”.
Michael Connarty asked what the sherpas (envoys sent by each country's PM to agree a framework on the new treaty) were discussing.
“Not very much”, she replied as she glanced to her advisers knowingly. She stumbled on: “I accept. I do accept... I know that the committee... I’ve read all manner of things, a number of fascinating articles about the negotiations that are no doubt going on. How the sherpas are beavering away, there will be a text here with brackets." [opening her arms in a dramatic Italian-style gesture while shaking her head] "No."
Then the plot thickened. The reason she couldn't answer any of the committee's questions was that it would make it easier for her to negotiate that way.
“The less I say about what we might in principle accept, and what we might not, the more I preserve the maximum amount of negotiating space to resist anything that I think is not in Britain’s national interest." She added: "we're not going to negotiate in public" (why did you show up then?)
"I appreciate that is unsatisfactory for the committee and I apologise to you for that. But since we are so much in uncharted waters of knowing what may be proposed. The more I say 'we can live with this, we can’t live with that', the more I’m giving away from my negotiating strategy. Which I’m always deeply reluctant to do.”
But she was happy to talk about the parts of the negotiations the Government are happy with. She said the Government could "live with" changes to the voting system and that she would “have sympathy” with proposals to introduce the subsidiarity mechanism from the old Constitution.
She even said it would be “unwise” to add things such as Copenhagen criteria (restricting future enlargement) , as well as clauses on energy and climate change.
The MPs were feeling frustrated. James Clappison said that he was going to ask for her view on the proposed EU President, "but I think I can make an educated guess about what the answer’s going to be”. The Foreign Secretary agreed - he has guessed right that the lady wasn’t for talking.
The whole performance was nicely summed up by her response to Richard Younger-Ross' assertion that there was nothing MPs could do to influence the Government in the negotiations and that the new treaty would be presented as a fait accompli.
She just shrugged her shoulders and looked away ... we wonder if she really has a place in the new 'humble', 'listening and learning' era of politics which Brown has promised...
Meanwhile, while the Foreign Secretary was insisting that the negotiations were "frozen", elsewhere Nicolas Sarkozy was announcing that, "Tony Blair and I have just agreed on what might be the framework for a simplified treaty. " Which doesn't sound very frosty...
The whole thing was like a piece of performance art: 60 long minutes of straightforward, in-your-face refusal to answer any questions. It made the famous Michael Howard Newsnight interview look like an excercise in open government. The only consolation, perhaps, is that soon all ministers will be touring the studios, having similarly difficult interviews, as they attempt to explain why the Government has broken its promise of a referendum. Now that will be fun to watch.
Margaret Beckett's performance in front of the EU scrutiny committee yesterday suggests that his legacy will survive after all when he steps down.
The session began with the Labour Committee Chairman - Michael Connarty - saying that the current negotiations on the EU Constitution were taking place against a "background of non-transparency". This, claimed Beckett, was Berlin's fault. It is the way they wanted to conduct negotiations. Nothing she could do about it.
She then denied that the questionnaire that Merkel had sent to every EU government had any importance ( the letter which set out how they would make "presentational changes... without changing the legal substance" of the Constitution). She said it had “not played any real part in the discussions” on the new treaty.
When asked to give a bit more detail on these discussions she argued -puzzlingly -that there hadn't been any. "Nothing that you could really call negotiations has taken place."
She told MPs that the idea that the Constitution was being resurrected had been made up by the media. She declared that "There is nothing on the table" and that other countries were "in denial" about the Constitution's rejection.
When Bill Cash dared to suggest that she might not have a firm grip on the negotiations, she replied tersely “It’s not that I don’t know what’s going on, it’s just that nothing is going on”.
She carried on: “I’m afraid Mr Cash, you say to me ‘We know there are party-to-party negotiations”. There are not. There have not been. There has been a process whereby member states are occasionally invited to give some views. There have not been negotiations.”
Cash: “So there is something going on” Beckett: [shouting] “There is nothing going on”.
She even refused to be drawn into whether she would support individual proposals from the old Constitution. “Until it is clear that a proposal is being but forward and in what form I will reserve my comments until something is practically proposed. And at the moment nothing is proposed.”
But then the cracks started to appear. First she confused her own interests with the interests of the country as a whole - “I believe it is very much in the interests of those who wish to see British national interests protected and preserved that we do not carry out our negotiations in public” [pause] “Especially when they haven’t started”.
Michael Connarty asked what the sherpas (envoys sent by each country's PM to agree a framework on the new treaty) were discussing.
“Not very much”, she replied as she glanced to her advisers knowingly. She stumbled on: “I accept. I do accept... I know that the committee... I’ve read all manner of things, a number of fascinating articles about the negotiations that are no doubt going on. How the sherpas are beavering away, there will be a text here with brackets." [opening her arms in a dramatic Italian-style gesture while shaking her head] "No."
Then the plot thickened. The reason she couldn't answer any of the committee's questions was that it would make it easier for her to negotiate that way.
“The less I say about what we might in principle accept, and what we might not, the more I preserve the maximum amount of negotiating space to resist anything that I think is not in Britain’s national interest." She added: "we're not going to negotiate in public" (why did you show up then?)
"I appreciate that is unsatisfactory for the committee and I apologise to you for that. But since we are so much in uncharted waters of knowing what may be proposed. The more I say 'we can live with this, we can’t live with that', the more I’m giving away from my negotiating strategy. Which I’m always deeply reluctant to do.”
But she was happy to talk about the parts of the negotiations the Government are happy with. She said the Government could "live with" changes to the voting system and that she would “have sympathy” with proposals to introduce the subsidiarity mechanism from the old Constitution.
She even said it would be “unwise” to add things such as Copenhagen criteria (restricting future enlargement) , as well as clauses on energy and climate change.
The MPs were feeling frustrated. James Clappison said that he was going to ask for her view on the proposed EU President, "but I think I can make an educated guess about what the answer’s going to be”. The Foreign Secretary agreed - he has guessed right that the lady wasn’t for talking.
The whole performance was nicely summed up by her response to Richard Younger-Ross' assertion that there was nothing MPs could do to influence the Government in the negotiations and that the new treaty would be presented as a fait accompli.
She just shrugged her shoulders and looked away ... we wonder if she really has a place in the new 'humble', 'listening and learning' era of politics which Brown has promised...
Meanwhile, while the Foreign Secretary was insisting that the negotiations were "frozen", elsewhere Nicolas Sarkozy was announcing that, "Tony Blair and I have just agreed on what might be the framework for a simplified treaty. " Which doesn't sound very frosty...
The whole thing was like a piece of performance art: 60 long minutes of straightforward, in-your-face refusal to answer any questions. It made the famous Michael Howard Newsnight interview look like an excercise in open government. The only consolation, perhaps, is that soon all ministers will be touring the studios, having similarly difficult interviews, as they attempt to explain why the Government has broken its promise of a referendum. Now that will be fun to watch.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
one thing leads to another
There is a lot going on at the moment. But amid all the short term rows about the revised constitutional treaty, the EU institutions are chugging along merrily, doing their long-term integrationist 'thing'.
For example, today the Commission has put out its green paper on the Common European Asylum System. The BBC has a good summary.
It's a classic area where the EU is marching miles ahead of - and indeed maybe not even in the same direction as - public knowledge and public opinion.
We doubt that most journalists, never mind most voters, even know that the EU is trying to set up a Common European Asylum System. Nonetheless the press release blandly states that the "first phase" of the system (the first four bits of legislation) is now complete.
The four building blocks of the first stage of the Common European Asylum System are now in place: Regulation (EC) 343/2003 ("Dublin
These legislative instruments aim at establishing a level playing field: a system which guarantees to persons genuinely in need of protection access to a high level of protection under equivalent conditions in all Member States while at the same time dealing fairly and efficiently with those found not to be in need of protection.
Some of that was controversial enough. Remember when the Commission said during the 2005 election that what the tories were proposing was illegal under EU law? Or the Scandinavians’ objections to a "white list" of ineligible origin countries? But the really tricky bit is the next part:
The ultimate objective of the Common European Asylum System, as envisaged by the Hague Programme, consists in the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons in need of international protection valid throughout the EU.
In particular:
There is a pressing need for increased solidarity in the area of asylum, so as to ensure that responsibility for processing asylum applications and granting protection in the EU is shared equitably.
Ah - "burden sharing" in other words.
bɜː(r)dɛn shɛə(r)ing , verb: "The point at which things always get tricky in the EU" (think emissions reductions, EU budget etc).
We're always pretty sceptical when people say that the EU will 'never' do such and such a thing. Generally speaking it always ends up doing it in the end. But can this idea really ever fly? Will countries in northernEurope really agree to accept more people to take the pressure off southern member states? Can this project survive exposure to public opinion?
Maybe, maybe not. Some of the suggestions might get through below the radar of public perception, like the suggestion for a "mechanism for the mutual recognition of national asylum decisions and the possibility of transfer of protection responsibilities." However others are likely to trigger a reaction, particularly the suggestion that "Intra-EU resettlement is an important way to pursue."
Asylum is a nice example of how one thing leads to another in the EU. As Richard Williams from ECRE says in the BBC piece: "Once you have a common area of freedom of movement, you have to have common rules and safeguards on who can and cannot come in," he says.
Funnily enough, we thought someone might say that.
Going forward the issue for theUK is that having got the bits of the Common System it likes (particularly Rome UK
For example, today the Commission has put out its green paper on the Common European Asylum System. The BBC has a good summary.
It's a classic area where the EU is marching miles ahead of - and indeed maybe not even in the same direction as - public knowledge and public opinion.
We doubt that most journalists, never mind most voters, even know that the EU is trying to set up a Common European Asylum System. Nonetheless the press release blandly states that the "first phase" of the system (the first four bits of legislation) is now complete.
The four building blocks of the first stage of the Common European Asylum System are now in place: Regulation (EC) 343/2003 ("
These legislative instruments aim at establishing a level playing field: a system which guarantees to persons genuinely in need of protection access to a high level of protection under equivalent conditions in all Member States while at the same time dealing fairly and efficiently with those found not to be in need of protection.
Some of that was controversial enough. Remember when the Commission said during the 2005 election that what the tories were proposing was illegal under EU law? Or the Scandinavians’ objections to a "white list" of ineligible origin countries? But the really tricky bit is the next part:
The ultimate objective of the Common European Asylum System, as envisaged by the Hague Programme, consists in the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons in need of international protection valid throughout the EU.
In particular:
There is a pressing need for increased solidarity in the area of asylum, so as to ensure that responsibility for processing asylum applications and granting protection in the EU is shared equitably.
Ah - "burden sharing" in other words.
bɜː(r)dɛn shɛə(r)ing , verb: "The point at which things always get tricky in the EU" (think emissions reductions, EU budget etc).
We're always pretty sceptical when people say that the EU will 'never' do such and such a thing. Generally speaking it always ends up doing it in the end. But can this idea really ever fly? Will countries in northern
Maybe, maybe not. Some of the suggestions might get through below the radar of public perception, like the suggestion for a "mechanism for the mutual recognition of national asylum decisions and the possibility of transfer of protection responsibilities." However others are likely to trigger a reaction, particularly the suggestion that "Intra-EU resettlement is an important way to pursue."
Asylum is a nice example of how one thing leads to another in the EU. As Richard Williams from ECRE says in the BBC piece: "Once you have a common area of freedom of movement, you have to have common rules and safeguards on who can and cannot come in," he says.
Funnily enough, we thought someone might say that.
Going forward the issue for the
Monday, 4 June 2007
EU clowns
Hidden in the health section of Saturday's Times was the news that the Finnish city of Tampere is employing clowns to boost the health of gloomy council workers, using £17,000 of EU cash. Kirsi Koski, the city of Tampere's personnel chief, told Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat (English) that clowns will make workers laugh - and "laughter is the core of wellbeing."
Nice to see the Structural Funds aren't only run by EU clowns but spent on them too..
Nice to see the Structural Funds aren't only run by EU clowns but spent on them too..
Holding us back
Back in March some of the UK's leading brewers joined us in criticising the EU for passing a regulation which banned the Crown stamp from British pint glasses and replaced it with the CE mark.
Now the Wiltshire Times reports that this EU regulation has forced a local brewery to abandon plans to sell its new organic beer in Biopack corn starch compostable glasses at the "green" Sunrise festival because they didn't have the correct EU stamps.
Just another in a long line of examples of how the EU's constant drive towards ever greater harmonisation stifles innovation and enterprise in its member states. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the EU promised us it would sort out through its Lisbon and Better Regulation Agendas?
Now the Wiltshire Times reports that this EU regulation has forced a local brewery to abandon plans to sell its new organic beer in Biopack corn starch compostable glasses at the "green" Sunrise festival because they didn't have the correct EU stamps.
Just another in a long line of examples of how the EU's constant drive towards ever greater harmonisation stifles innovation and enterprise in its member states. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the EU promised us it would sort out through its Lisbon and Better Regulation Agendas?
Friday, 1 June 2007
Summit deal in the balance?
What are the chances of EU leaders reaching agreement at the June EU Summit?
Gideon Rachman informs us that although German foreign policy academics are fairly optimistic that Merkel can broker a deal, Berlin’s foreign ministry officials are less confident. They are giving odds of no more than 50-50.
Contrary to what the European Voice said the other day, of the three ‘problem’ countries – Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland (now apparently referred to by German officials as “the three crazies”) – it is Poland that is viewed as the biggest challenge. Specifically, Berlin fears that Warsaw’s demands on changes to the voting weight system proposed in the original Constitution could unravel the basis for agreement. If the matter of voting weights is opened up for discussion, this could open up a Pandora’s box of other issues that will be put back on the table.
“Poland has just one request – but that request is dynamite”, said one German diplomat.
The Poles seem to be sticking to their guns on this issue. Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said "We are ready to die for this" (Echoing Jan Rokita's call for "Nice or Death" during the Constitution negotiations).
On the other hand, there’s still the possibility of Warsaw being bought off. According to El Mundo, Merkel hopes to win over Poland through a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, using €60bn of EU funds and a possible clause on energy solidarity as bargaining chips with Warsaw.
Meanwhile, we are now beginning to see a consensus crystallize around the idea of Sarkozy’s mini-Constitution, which appeared to have already received the consent of Berlin. Even the Belgians, Italians and Spanish now seem ready to fall into line behind the French idea, despite their previously strong opposition to anything that smacked of a “minimalist” treaty. Reuters quoted a senior EU official earlier in the week as saying: "Merkel knows what she's doing and the puzzle's mostly done".
Gideon Rachman informs us that although German foreign policy academics are fairly optimistic that Merkel can broker a deal, Berlin’s foreign ministry officials are less confident. They are giving odds of no more than 50-50.
Contrary to what the European Voice said the other day, of the three ‘problem’ countries – Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland (now apparently referred to by German officials as “the three crazies”) – it is Poland that is viewed as the biggest challenge. Specifically, Berlin fears that Warsaw’s demands on changes to the voting weight system proposed in the original Constitution could unravel the basis for agreement. If the matter of voting weights is opened up for discussion, this could open up a Pandora’s box of other issues that will be put back on the table.
“Poland has just one request – but that request is dynamite”, said one German diplomat.
The Poles seem to be sticking to their guns on this issue. Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski said "We are ready to die for this" (Echoing Jan Rokita's call for "Nice or Death" during the Constitution negotiations).
On the other hand, there’s still the possibility of Warsaw being bought off. According to El Mundo, Merkel hopes to win over Poland through a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, using €60bn of EU funds and a possible clause on energy solidarity as bargaining chips with Warsaw.
Meanwhile, we are now beginning to see a consensus crystallize around the idea of Sarkozy’s mini-Constitution, which appeared to have already received the consent of Berlin. Even the Belgians, Italians and Spanish now seem ready to fall into line behind the French idea, despite their previously strong opposition to anything that smacked of a “minimalist” treaty. Reuters quoted a senior EU official earlier in the week as saying: "Merkel knows what she's doing and the puzzle's mostly done".
bad timing
The wheels of Europe turn slow - and the Financial Perspective for 2007-13, which was first agreed in December 2005, has now finally had all of its numbers finally agreed by governments and eurocrats.
Which means it will be up for parliamentary ratification in the next parliamentary session according to a letter from the treasury to the Democracy Movement - who have been running a "stop the cheques" campaign.
That's less than ideal timing from the Government's point of view. Firstly, it will come during what Brown is promising will be an eye-wateringly tight public spending round (he wants the left to squeal, in order to counter the tories 'lurch to the left' stuff). Given that context, a big increase in what we spend on the EU will not go down too well with 100% of Labour backbenchers.
Secondly, it may well be in the middle of an intergovernmental conference on the new mini-constitution. What better reminder of where exactly Blair's approach of "going with the flow" in Europe has got us?
The debate as it goes through parliament should be a good opportunity to pick over some interesting issues. Why for example is Ireland still a net recipient, despite being the second richest member state? Why is Spain the biggest absolute recipient, given that it is no longer a poor country?
Why was it necessary to spend a billion euros on political sweeteners in order to (as Geoff Hoon put it) "generate a political consensus for an agreement" on the deal? Isn't there a better way to spend 864 billion euros than on the CAP, and a series of failing regional policies? Our take is here.
Which means it will be up for parliamentary ratification in the next parliamentary session according to a letter from the treasury to the Democracy Movement - who have been running a "stop the cheques" campaign.
That's less than ideal timing from the Government's point of view. Firstly, it will come during what Brown is promising will be an eye-wateringly tight public spending round (he wants the left to squeal, in order to counter the tories 'lurch to the left' stuff). Given that context, a big increase in what we spend on the EU will not go down too well with 100% of Labour backbenchers.
Secondly, it may well be in the middle of an intergovernmental conference on the new mini-constitution. What better reminder of where exactly Blair's approach of "going with the flow" in Europe has got us?
The debate as it goes through parliament should be a good opportunity to pick over some interesting issues. Why for example is Ireland still a net recipient, despite being the second richest member state? Why is Spain the biggest absolute recipient, given that it is no longer a poor country?
Why was it necessary to spend a billion euros on political sweeteners in order to (as Geoff Hoon put it) "generate a political consensus for an agreement" on the deal? Isn't there a better way to spend 864 billion euros than on the CAP, and a series of failing regional policies? Our take is here.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Treaty Horsetrading
An interesting piece on the Constitution negotiations has gone up on the European Voice website (subscription only).
It reports that the UK is becoming "the most difficult member state" in the talks. Apparently the Government is opposing the creation of a "legal personality" for the EU - which is being made a "red line" issue by the Germans. As has already been reported the UK is also opposed to the Charter having legal force, to giving up more national vetoes and to collapsing the pillar structure (which would hugely increase the power of ECJ judges and the Commission).
What is interesting is that apparently the French are saying that in return for the Charter's omission, and the deletion of EU symbols from the text- such as the flag and the anthem - the UK needs to give way on majority voting. A spokesman for Sarkozy said, “Blair can be bold on qualified majority if there is nothing on the charter and the Union’s symbols”.
We doubt that the UK Government will sign up to anything that abolishes more national vetoes. But one thing is certain; they won't get their way without a fight. Time after time in EU negotiations Blair showed he wasn't up to it; can Brown deliver where Blair failed?
It reports that the UK is becoming "the most difficult member state" in the talks. Apparently the Government is opposing the creation of a "legal personality" for the EU - which is being made a "red line" issue by the Germans. As has already been reported the UK is also opposed to the Charter having legal force, to giving up more national vetoes and to collapsing the pillar structure (which would hugely increase the power of ECJ judges and the Commission).
What is interesting is that apparently the French are saying that in return for the Charter's omission, and the deletion of EU symbols from the text- such as the flag and the anthem - the UK needs to give way on majority voting. A spokesman for Sarkozy said, “Blair can be bold on qualified majority if there is nothing on the charter and the Union’s symbols”.
We doubt that the UK Government will sign up to anything that abolishes more national vetoes. But one thing is certain; they won't get their way without a fight. Time after time in EU negotiations Blair showed he wasn't up to it; can Brown deliver where Blair failed?
Friday, 25 May 2007
Seriously unhip
Housing Minister Yvette Cooper has not had the best of weeks. Home Information Packs, the measure which she had personaly championed - and threatened to resign over - were watered down and delayed for the second time this week after a legal challenge by industry groups.
So she can't have been too happy that her Shadow - Michael Gove - today forced her to admit that the Government has already wasted nearly a million quid promoting the things.
The once 'guaranteed' cabinet post seems to be slipping through her fingers...
So she can't have been too happy that her Shadow - Michael Gove - today forced her to admit that the Government has already wasted nearly a million quid promoting the things.
The once 'guaranteed' cabinet post seems to be slipping through her fingers...
Strasbourg Shenanigans
It seems that some Conservative MEPs were pretty unhappy to be told by their whips that they had to support the 1960s-style price caps put on roaming charges in the vote in Strasbourg on Wednesday.
We were amused to read on Richard Corbett's blog that two of their number came up with a crafty way to avoid supporting the measure:
"Like many national parliaments, the European Parliament has rules that members may not vote on matters where they have a pecuniary personal interest. This is intended to stop, for instance, members who hold shares in a company that might be affected by a decision from benefitting from the way they vote.
In yesterday’s vote on capping mobile phone charges, two of the Eurosceptic Tory MEPs got up to say that they would not be voting because they stood to gain financially if phone charges went down, because they owned mobile phones."
As Dan Hannan argues in the First Post today, cutting roaming charges is likely to have the perverse effect of cutting costs for international travellers while raising costs for poorer domestic users. This could mean that teenagers using 'pay as you go' phones to call their mates will be charged more than MEPs phoning their constituency office from Brussels. Therefore they've got a pecuniary interest...
We were amused to read on Richard Corbett's blog that two of their number came up with a crafty way to avoid supporting the measure:
"Like many national parliaments, the European Parliament has rules that members may not vote on matters where they have a pecuniary personal interest. This is intended to stop, for instance, members who hold shares in a company that might be affected by a decision from benefitting from the way they vote.
In yesterday’s vote on capping mobile phone charges, two of the Eurosceptic Tory MEPs got up to say that they would not be voting because they stood to gain financially if phone charges went down, because they owned mobile phones."
As Dan Hannan argues in the First Post today, cutting roaming charges is likely to have the perverse effect of cutting costs for international travellers while raising costs for poorer domestic users. This could mean that teenagers using 'pay as you go' phones to call their mates will be charged more than MEPs phoning their constituency office from Brussels. Therefore they've got a pecuniary interest...
fancy footwork
Jonathan Freedland has an interesting piece in the New Statesman on Brown's foreign policy.
On Europe, we have had several glimpses of the shape of things to come. Brown's impatience at finance ministers' meetings, and his derailment of British membership of the euro, suggest a sceptic. He loathes the Common Agricultural Policy, a piece of protectionism that cannot be defended in an era of global free trade. With the French and the Germans now talking of resuscitating the corpse of an EU constitution, reclothing it as a treaty, a collision seems likely. Brown would not want to rouse the ire of the Eurosceptic press by driving such a treaty through parliament; but nor could he risk submitting it to a referendum that he could lose. Expect some trademark footwork to get this booted into the long
All very well - but does Brown really have the guts to crash the talks? In one sense it wouldn't be too hard. The Czechs and Poles are having constant high level President-to-President dinners, and seem to be more serious about the voting weights issue than a lot of people realise. However, without some kind of big country ally, both will probably fold in return for concessions. Blair will leave them to twist in the wind, but there is certainly an opportunity for Brown to hold up the talks... if it's not too late when he takes over.
Still, it seems more likely that Brown wil go with Plan "A" - sign up to a mini-constitution then downplay it. He isn't a eurosceptic - though he is less keen to make political sacrifices for Europe than Blair was.
Where Brown would like to set a lead, rather than just react, is on the aid and trade agenda he has made his own (his only beef with the Make Poverty History campaign is that he thinks it should be pushing governments, including his, harder), and also on climate change. He wants to outmanoeuvre the Tories on this territory not by matching David Cameron wind turbine for wind turbine, but by coming up with the kind of large-scale breakthrough that would make Cameron look like a lightweight. He speaks of plans for the reforestation of the Congo, of recasting the beleaguered World Bank as a new Environment Bank, of establishing a carbon market in London. This is the level he wants to operate on; he'll leave the organic broccoli to Cameron.
Also interesting - but how is he going to get a "real breakthrough" on trade without some kind of fight in Europe? He will be up against Sarko - who seems to have an even more aggressive stance on the CAP than Chirac.
The two things are certainly linked - the FCO will be telling Brown that he won't get anywhere on trade etc... unless he plays nice on the mini-constitution. We think that approach has been tested to destruction - but has Gordon learned that lesson?
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
stato
The Government's Energy White Paper mentions Europe or the EU a total of 512 times.
That reflects the fact Government is making a hell of a big bet on the EU as the vehicle for its green ambitions.
But is an organisation that has spent 45 years tinkering with the CAP really well place to lead an urgent campaign to "save the planet"?
They admit that progress in liberalising Euope's big energy markets has been "slower than expected." (Translation: 's not moving)
There is definitely a tension between the government's rhetoric about the "urgency" of climate change as an issue, and their seemingly unflagging (?) support for doing things through the EU, which moves at a snail's pace.
That reflects the fact Government is making a hell of a big bet on the EU as the vehicle for its green ambitions.
But is an organisation that has spent 45 years tinkering with the CAP really well place to lead an urgent campaign to "save the planet"?
They admit that progress in liberalising Euope's big energy markets has been "slower than expected." (Translation: 's not moving)
There is definitely a tension between the government's rhetoric about the "urgency" of climate change as an issue, and their seemingly unflagging (?) support for doing things through the EU, which moves at a snail's pace.
Diversity roadshow grinds to a halt
Rather surreal story just in from EUpolitix:
“Employment commissioner Vladimir Spidla has hit out after the EU’s so-called diversity truck was prevented from visiting Lithuania. The truck – a giant 30-tonne vehicle with an in-built 50 square metre stage – is touring 19 EU countries until the end of the year in a bid to raise awareness about discrimination…
The truck, which set off from Strasbourg on 25 April and was en-route from Estonia, was scheduled to spend 2-3 days in Vilnius as part of the commission’s efforts to mark the year of equal opportunities for all. It was due to host an exhibition on one particular form of discrimination – homophobia - organised by a Lithuanian NGO in the city’s market square…
A commission spokeswoman said, ‘Apparently, the mayor of Vilnius took particular objection to this and said the truck would not be allowed into the city.’
‘Our position is that the non-discrimination message the truck is carrying around Europe is essential,’ she said.”
Interestingly, it was planned right from the start that the truck would not stop in Romania or Poland, on account the recent flare-ups in homophobic sentiment in these countries. Apparently the diversity-awareness-enhancing-power of the truck just isn’t strong enough to break local resistance in these places…
“Employment commissioner Vladimir Spidla has hit out after the EU’s so-called diversity truck was prevented from visiting Lithuania. The truck – a giant 30-tonne vehicle with an in-built 50 square metre stage – is touring 19 EU countries until the end of the year in a bid to raise awareness about discrimination…
The truck, which set off from Strasbourg on 25 April and was en-route from Estonia, was scheduled to spend 2-3 days in Vilnius as part of the commission’s efforts to mark the year of equal opportunities for all. It was due to host an exhibition on one particular form of discrimination – homophobia - organised by a Lithuanian NGO in the city’s market square…
A commission spokeswoman said, ‘Apparently, the mayor of Vilnius took particular objection to this and said the truck would not be allowed into the city.’
‘Our position is that the non-discrimination message the truck is carrying around Europe is essential,’ she said.”
Interestingly, it was planned right from the start that the truck would not stop in Romania or Poland, on account the recent flare-ups in homophobic sentiment in these countries. Apparently the diversity-awareness-enhancing-power of the truck just isn’t strong enough to break local resistance in these places…
What a shambles
The pro-euro camp have come up with their case for the new mini-constitution.
It's a joint publication of the Centre for European Reform and "Business for new Europe" - a ludicrous front group set 'inspired' by Peter Mandelson, which operates out of the offices of a lobbying firm called Finsbury.
Its a very amusing read.
After a good deal of beating about the bush, it tries to make the case for the new text.
One arguement is that the mini-Constitution is needed for enlargement. Eh? Didn't Sarkozy just say that Turkey is never coming in? As his aide Alain Lamassoure put it: "EU leaders have been lying to Turks for the past few years and the new French leadership believes we must stop doing so… The sooner we will have the courage to say this openly to Turkey the better."
We don't mean to be harsh but has there ever been, at any point, any suggestion whatsoever from France that they might let in Turkey if we sign up to the mini-Constitution? Or is this 100% pure self-delusion?
Another old argument is then dredged up. If we say no there will be "a loss of British influence". In fact "The Germans would not be amused that Britain had effectively destroyed what they hoped would be the crowning achievement of their EU presidency" (ooh - nasty).
Its difficult to know where to start with this sort of defeatist argument. One basic point is that we have already tried making sacrifices to look communautaire. Where has it got us? Take the EU budget negotiations - we gave away over £7 billion pounds for nothing but the promise of a "review" later.
The reality is that we need to have our own vision and insist on it. If your first priority is never to have an argument then you will never get anywhere.
Another argument is that if we said 'no' then "The more integrationist countries would start talking about ‘variable geometry."
One word: "great".
A flexible Europe (multi-speed is the wrong word because it implies everyone is going in the same direction) is the only way out of the EU's fundamental dilemma: some member states want more integration, other want less.
Lastly and leastly, the supposedly 'clinching' argument for the mini-Constitution is that the Union would become less capable of dealing with the many external challenges it faces". The paper lists Doha, the middle east, and Kyoto 2 as examples.
But the EU has flunked every one of these challenges. It is the main obstacle to a real development round. During the hostage crisis, EU members refused to endorse even the most mild sanctions on Iran (like no more export credits). And the EU's resposne to climate change is a joke: EU Emissions are up, not down, since it signed Kyoto, and the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme is a catastrophic failure which as squandered a fortune while allowing emissions to rise.
If we are ever going to get the EU to take these things seriously, the last thing we should do is legitimise the current EU's failings by giving it more power. The answer instead is to make our continued £10.5 billion a year payments to the EU conditional on progress - for example a meaningful Doha offer.
The bottom line, and the fundamental difference in our approach, is that we believe you don't get what you want in Europe by just going with the flow. Over the last ten years (maybe even the last 35) we have tested that idea to pretty much destruction. Now we need a fresh start, not more of the same.
(PS - you can get our contrasting take on the mini-constitution here)
It's a joint publication of the Centre for European Reform and "Business for new Europe" - a ludicrous front group set 'inspired' by Peter Mandelson, which operates out of the offices of a lobbying firm called Finsbury.
Its a very amusing read.
After a good deal of beating about the bush, it tries to make the case for the new text.
One arguement is that the mini-Constitution is needed for enlargement. Eh? Didn't Sarkozy just say that Turkey is never coming in? As his aide Alain Lamassoure put it: "EU leaders have been lying to Turks for the past few years and the new French leadership believes we must stop doing so… The sooner we will have the courage to say this openly to Turkey the better."
We don't mean to be harsh but has there ever been, at any point, any suggestion whatsoever from France that they might let in Turkey if we sign up to the mini-Constitution? Or is this 100% pure self-delusion?
Another old argument is then dredged up. If we say no there will be "a loss of British influence". In fact "The Germans would not be amused that Britain had effectively destroyed what they hoped would be the crowning achievement of their EU presidency" (ooh - nasty).
Its difficult to know where to start with this sort of defeatist argument. One basic point is that we have already tried making sacrifices to look communautaire. Where has it got us? Take the EU budget negotiations - we gave away over £7 billion pounds for nothing but the promise of a "review" later.
The reality is that we need to have our own vision and insist on it. If your first priority is never to have an argument then you will never get anywhere.
Another argument is that if we said 'no' then "The more integrationist countries would start talking about ‘variable geometry."
One word: "great".
A flexible Europe (multi-speed is the wrong word because it implies everyone is going in the same direction) is the only way out of the EU's fundamental dilemma: some member states want more integration, other want less.
Lastly and leastly, the supposedly 'clinching' argument for the mini-Constitution is that the Union would become less capable of dealing with the many external challenges it faces". The paper lists Doha, the middle east, and Kyoto 2 as examples.
But the EU has flunked every one of these challenges. It is the main obstacle to a real development round. During the hostage crisis, EU members refused to endorse even the most mild sanctions on Iran (like no more export credits). And the EU's resposne to climate change is a joke: EU Emissions are up, not down, since it signed Kyoto, and the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme is a catastrophic failure which as squandered a fortune while allowing emissions to rise.
If we are ever going to get the EU to take these things seriously, the last thing we should do is legitimise the current EU's failings by giving it more power. The answer instead is to make our continued £10.5 billion a year payments to the EU conditional on progress - for example a meaningful Doha offer.
The bottom line, and the fundamental difference in our approach, is that we believe you don't get what you want in Europe by just going with the flow. Over the last ten years (maybe even the last 35) we have tested that idea to pretty much destruction. Now we need a fresh start, not more of the same.
(PS - you can get our contrasting take on the mini-constitution here)
a big pile of treaties
Blimey.
The Europa website has a database listing all the international agreements and treaties to which the EC is party.
There are about 656 of them - everything from the Kyoto protocol to the thrilling "Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of certain steel products from the Republic of Moldova to the European Community."
Hat Tip ECJ blog.
The Europa website has a database listing all the international agreements and treaties to which the EC is party.
There are about 656 of them - everything from the Kyoto protocol to the thrilling "Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova establishing a double-checking system without quantitative limits in respect of certain steel products from the Republic of Moldova to the European Community."
Hat Tip ECJ blog.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
row incoming
PA reports on new statistics from the Home Office, out this morning:
Nearly 8,000 Bulgarians and Romanians came to work in Britain in the first three months after their countries joined the EU, the Home Office said today.
A further 2,400 have joined the seasonal agricultural workers' scheme.
The figures did not provide a full picture of the numbers who have moved to the UK because no such records are kept by the Government.
The Government had initially said that the number of jobs for migrants from the A2 would be 20,000. The Home Office said that "Low-skilled migration from Bulgaria and Romania will be restricted to those sectors of the economy where the UK already has low-skilled schemes and will be subject to a strict quota which will not exceed 20,000 workers per year."
But later, after a run in with farmers, the Government reduced the cap to just 10,000. (See the Sunday Times and our blog from last October). But now it looks like we are already over that - with nine months to go.
Whether the "limit" was 10,000 or 20,000, it looks like the fantasy idea of "limiting" the number of jobs available without limiting free movement is about to collide with reality.
Nearly 8,000 Bulgarians and Romanians came to work in Britain in the first three months after their countries joined the EU, the Home Office said today.
A further 2,400 have joined the seasonal agricultural workers' scheme.
The figures did not provide a full picture of the numbers who have moved to the UK because no such records are kept by the Government.
The Government had initially said that the number of jobs for migrants from the A2 would be 20,000. The Home Office said that "Low-skilled migration from Bulgaria and Romania will be restricted to those sectors of the economy where the UK already has low-skilled schemes and will be subject to a strict quota which will not exceed 20,000 workers per year."
But later, after a run in with farmers, the Government reduced the cap to just 10,000. (See the Sunday Times and our blog from last October). But now it looks like we are already over that - with nine months to go.
Whether the "limit" was 10,000 or 20,000, it looks like the fantasy idea of "limiting" the number of jobs available without limiting free movement is about to collide with reality.
Friday, 18 May 2007
Socialists to represent France in Europe
President Sarkozy has unveiled his new government today. In what may be a sign of things to come, he has given the only Socialist member of the 15-strong cabinet, Bernard Kouchner, the role of Minister for Foreign and European Affairs. The new Prime Minister, François Fillon, will also be assisted by a Secretary of State for European Affairs, namely Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the ex-head of cabinet of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, and, reportedly, a close friend of both Ségolène Royal and Socialist Party leader François Hollande.
Tellingly, Sarko has also scrapped the role of Trade Minister, rebranding Christine Lagarde as simply Minister for Agriculture...
As well as Kouchner’s well-documented humanitarian background, as co-founder of Médecins sans Frontières and UN boss in Kosovo, we also know that:
- During the debate on the EU Constitution in France, he helped form a “Committee of the Left for a yes”, launching a campaign for the Socialist Party to vote yes. Despite being an ardent ‘yes’ campaigner, in July 2004 he said in an interview with Le Parisien that he wasn’t “delighted with this Constitution, but so what?” (Le Figaro, 12 July)
- Before the French had even voted on the Constitution, he said French voters who were intending to vote no “are not responding to the question, they are responding to the questioner.” (AFP, 20 May 2005) Afterwards, he criticised the “treason” of opponents of the Constitution (Le Monde, 15 September 2004)
- He believes ‘European construction’ is “marvellous and insufficient” (AFP, October 26 2004)
- He was a member of the European Parliament from 1994 to 1997. In 2004, when he was thinking of running again in the European elections, he complained about the “lack of modern social-democracy in Europe” (Liberation, 2 March)
- In October 2005 La Croix reported that Bernard Kouchner’s priority was to re-launch Europe with simple projects and concrete proposals so that it is no longer, in his words, “This cold and disembodied monster” alienated from its citizens. “Why have we not yet created a European fleet of water bombers to fight against forest fires? Universal medical cover at European level? Let’s stop debating and start doing things together,” he said (4 Oct). As a doctor and former health minister, he once called for a global fund against infectious diseases.
- Kouchner famously criticised the French government for not aligning with Britain and the US over the war in Iraq. He was one of the few Frenchmen to support the invasion, but fiercely criticised US management of the aftermath. In March 2003 he said, “If we had been at their side, we could have avoided the war... The only way to avoid war was to be at their sides for a firm solution.” He said, “The English and the Americans have violated” multilateralism, because “we brandished the veto too early.” In Februrary 2003 he had an article in Le Monde arguing that, “By criticising George Bush, the Europeans are playing Saddam’s game.” He said, “The French have accentuated the fracture in Europe instead of healing it.” “We harnessed ourselves to German pacifism, it was a mistake.” (AFP 18 May 2007)
Tellingly, Sarko has also scrapped the role of Trade Minister, rebranding Christine Lagarde as simply Minister for Agriculture...
As well as Kouchner’s well-documented humanitarian background, as co-founder of Médecins sans Frontières and UN boss in Kosovo, we also know that:
- During the debate on the EU Constitution in France, he helped form a “Committee of the Left for a yes”, launching a campaign for the Socialist Party to vote yes. Despite being an ardent ‘yes’ campaigner, in July 2004 he said in an interview with Le Parisien that he wasn’t “delighted with this Constitution, but so what?” (Le Figaro, 12 July)
- Before the French had even voted on the Constitution, he said French voters who were intending to vote no “are not responding to the question, they are responding to the questioner.” (AFP, 20 May 2005) Afterwards, he criticised the “treason” of opponents of the Constitution (Le Monde, 15 September 2004)
- He believes ‘European construction’ is “marvellous and insufficient” (AFP, October 26 2004)
- He was a member of the European Parliament from 1994 to 1997. In 2004, when he was thinking of running again in the European elections, he complained about the “lack of modern social-democracy in Europe” (Liberation, 2 March)
- In October 2005 La Croix reported that Bernard Kouchner’s priority was to re-launch Europe with simple projects and concrete proposals so that it is no longer, in his words, “This cold and disembodied monster” alienated from its citizens. “Why have we not yet created a European fleet of water bombers to fight against forest fires? Universal medical cover at European level? Let’s stop debating and start doing things together,” he said (4 Oct). As a doctor and former health minister, he once called for a global fund against infectious diseases.
- Kouchner famously criticised the French government for not aligning with Britain and the US over the war in Iraq. He was one of the few Frenchmen to support the invasion, but fiercely criticised US management of the aftermath. In March 2003 he said, “If we had been at their side, we could have avoided the war... The only way to avoid war was to be at their sides for a firm solution.” He said, “The English and the Americans have violated” multilateralism, because “we brandished the veto too early.” In Februrary 2003 he had an article in Le Monde arguing that, “By criticising George Bush, the Europeans are playing Saddam’s game.” He said, “The French have accentuated the fracture in Europe instead of healing it.” “We harnessed ourselves to German pacifism, it was a mistake.” (AFP 18 May 2007)
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Blair slaps down Brown over EU summit
Lots of media interest this morning in the negotiations on the new EU treaty. The Independent has said that Tony Blair should step down immediately and that Gordon Brown should attend the crucial summit in June. The Times argued:
"The danger is that Mr Blair will sign Britain up to a treaty that is too integrationist and that Mr Brown, blaming his predecessor, will then try to avoid holding a referendum... The Chancellor must immerse himself in the detail of the proposed treaty and accompany Mr Blair to the Brussels summit. He must not allow the Prime Minister to sign anything that he would not be prepared to defend.”
But according to a written answer given to Lord Leach this morning Brown will not be allowed to attend. Lord Treisman said:
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will lead the UK delegation at the European Council meeting on 22 and 23 June. The delegation will include my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary".
Blair's insistence that it will be him - not Brown - that will sign the deal on the new EU treaty is giving the Treasury jitters. According to the MailEd Balls a Brownite ally said,“We aren't being told what they are up to. It is very secretive. Our worry is that in an attempt to pull off a coup they will give away too much and damage Gordon".
According to PA, backbench Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay called this morning for Blair to let Brown go instead:
"It is not in the interests of the UK that somebody who is retiring should commit the country. It's simply wrong that the man who is going to have to deal with the consequences of the EU summit isn't the one who is going to be calling the shots. The UK would be substantially disadvantaged.”
But the PM's not for turning. His spokesman said this morning that Blair would represent both the country and the Government at the EU summit, and that the Government's position in Brussels would be based on normal discussions with ministers - including Mr Brown - ahead of the talks.
"He has been heavily involved in preparations for that EU summit and therefore it makes entire sense for him to be the one there. There are major issues still to be finalised within the coming period and that's what the Prime Minister will do."
"The danger is that Mr Blair will sign Britain up to a treaty that is too integrationist and that Mr Brown, blaming his predecessor, will then try to avoid holding a referendum... The Chancellor must immerse himself in the detail of the proposed treaty and accompany Mr Blair to the Brussels summit. He must not allow the Prime Minister to sign anything that he would not be prepared to defend.”
But according to a written answer given to Lord Leach this morning Brown will not be allowed to attend. Lord Treisman said:
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will lead the UK delegation at the European Council meeting on 22 and 23 June. The delegation will include my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary".
Blair's insistence that it will be him - not Brown - that will sign the deal on the new EU treaty is giving the Treasury jitters. According to the Mail
According to PA, backbench Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay called this morning for Blair to let Brown go instead:
"It is not in the interests of the UK that somebody who is retiring should commit the country. It's simply wrong that the man who is going to have to deal with the consequences of the EU summit isn't the one who is going to be calling the shots. The UK would be substantially disadvantaged.”
But the PM's not for turning. His spokesman said this morning that Blair would represent both the country and the Government at the EU summit, and that the Government's position in Brussels would be based on normal discussions with ministers - including Mr Brown - ahead of the talks.
"He has been heavily involved in preparations for that EU summit and therefore it makes entire sense for him to be the one there. There are major issues still to be finalised within the coming period and that's what the Prime Minister will do."
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Barrot vague on Galileo's added value
In a press conference today EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot was asked repeatedly why taxpayers are now being asked to fork out for the new Galileo system when private industry groups have decided it’s not worth the risk.
He replied that the failure of the public-private partnership for the design phase does not undermine the credibility of the project, insisting, “We know there is a big market for it.” He said the industry never said Galileo wouldn’t be profitable, but that they didn’t want to take the risk at this stage: “I don’t understand your question… no-one told us to give up on it.” Asked whose fault the failure of the initial plan for a public-private partnership was, he said, “Well, it’s not really a failure as such. A consortium was chosen, but was not able to answer the questions put to it.” He argued, “I’ve done my job. I’ve taken all the necessary decisions to change the situation… no-one is to blame as such, and certainly not me! I have tried to resolve the problem.”
A British journalist asked repeatedly when exactly civilian operations would be required to use Galileo rather than GPS, but the best Barrot could do was to talk vaguely about Galileo’s “many uses”, including “search and rescue”, and noting that the improved version of GPS will only be up and running much later on. He insisted that “Galileo will be much better than GPS... Galileo’s performance is very important and if it seen to be of high quality, then there’s no reason why people would go for GPS... Galileo will be superior. That is why people will choose it.”
On the funding, he confirmed that the costs at this initial financing stage are €3.4billion, of which we already have €1bn, so €2.4bn more is needed. Add to that the maintenance costs once the system is built - €200m a year over a 20 year period - plus replacement of certain satellites, gives €10bn as a general amount.
However, he argued that there would obviously be revenues generated from applications, and insisted that taxpayers are not actually being asked to stump up more - indeed there are in fact savings for the public sector, because under the previous arrangement, industry would advance the money and then ask that it be repaid each year with interest. He said it was “like the difference between buying a house outright and getting a mortgage... We need to draw a clear distinction between building costs and overall costs, which will actually now be less than under the previous system, because we won’t have to pay back the loan from industry. There would also be less risks, because with the new scenario, at least the risks are very clear. There’s the construction risk, which we shoulder, and then the private sector will shoulder the application risks.”
Asked again how come things so far had gone wrong, Barrot - getting quite heated now - insisted, “I don’t think Galileo has actually failed! That’s a misuse of language… we’ve had a change of scenarios.” He said, “There was a risk of delay… we’re changing scenarios to avoid failure.” He said the difficulties the consortium had in responding to the Commission, because companies disagreed, “may” have been due to state interference. He said, “Member states need to realise that the real results will come after the success of Galileo.... The project has not yet been completed – the return on the product will come when it is finished”, complaining that “Everyone wants their money back straight away!”
There were also a lot of questions about possible military uses for Galileo, to which Barrot replied, “Obviously there are civilian and military uses for this, but Galileo will remain a civilian system under civilian control, as the Council has reiterated time and time again. But that doesn’t mean that military users cannot use it, as long as they comply with certain principles. For example, we cannot stop the Italian Carabinieri or the Guarda Civil using Galileo to carry out their work, e.g. on search and rescue – these are military users.” He said Galileo “obviously cannot be off-limits to someone because they’re members of the military.” However he said he had no ‘mandate’ for discussing its military uses, saying he had tried to have conversations in London with ministers on this but lacked the necessary "mandate" for providing answers.
He summed up saying industry was “chomping at the bit” for Galileo, and that Europe must not wait, or it will fall further behind. Instead of wasting time asking “metaphysical” questions about its military uses etc, we should be seizing "Europe's chance to stay at the top of the league."
I feel so much clearer now...
PS nice summary of sentiments here : "According to the European Commission website, Galileo will be "fully operable in 2008 at the latest, with start of signal transmission in 2005." Let's hope the software is more up to date than the web page - If we're all going to be reamed for the cost of this unnecessary waste of cash - and we are - it would be nice if the ****ing thing works."
PPS - there's now a longer note on this whole issue on our website.
He replied that the failure of the public-private partnership for the design phase does not undermine the credibility of the project, insisting, “We know there is a big market for it.” He said the industry never said Galileo wouldn’t be profitable, but that they didn’t want to take the risk at this stage: “I don’t understand your question… no-one told us to give up on it.” Asked whose fault the failure of the initial plan for a public-private partnership was, he said, “Well, it’s not really a failure as such. A consortium was chosen, but was not able to answer the questions put to it.” He argued, “I’ve done my job. I’ve taken all the necessary decisions to change the situation… no-one is to blame as such, and certainly not me! I have tried to resolve the problem.”
A British journalist asked repeatedly when exactly civilian operations would be required to use Galileo rather than GPS, but the best Barrot could do was to talk vaguely about Galileo’s “many uses”, including “search and rescue”, and noting that the improved version of GPS will only be up and running much later on. He insisted that “Galileo will be much better than GPS... Galileo’s performance is very important and if it seen to be of high quality, then there’s no reason why people would go for GPS... Galileo will be superior. That is why people will choose it.”
On the funding, he confirmed that the costs at this initial financing stage are €3.4billion, of which we already have €1bn, so €2.4bn more is needed. Add to that the maintenance costs once the system is built - €200m a year over a 20 year period - plus replacement of certain satellites, gives €10bn as a general amount.
However, he argued that there would obviously be revenues generated from applications, and insisted that taxpayers are not actually being asked to stump up more - indeed there are in fact savings for the public sector, because under the previous arrangement, industry would advance the money and then ask that it be repaid each year with interest. He said it was “like the difference between buying a house outright and getting a mortgage... We need to draw a clear distinction between building costs and overall costs, which will actually now be less than under the previous system, because we won’t have to pay back the loan from industry. There would also be less risks, because with the new scenario, at least the risks are very clear. There’s the construction risk, which we shoulder, and then the private sector will shoulder the application risks.”
Asked again how come things so far had gone wrong, Barrot - getting quite heated now - insisted, “I don’t think Galileo has actually failed! That’s a misuse of language… we’ve had a change of scenarios.” He said, “There was a risk of delay… we’re changing scenarios to avoid failure.” He said the difficulties the consortium had in responding to the Commission, because companies disagreed, “may” have been due to state interference. He said, “Member states need to realise that the real results will come after the success of Galileo.... The project has not yet been completed – the return on the product will come when it is finished”, complaining that “Everyone wants their money back straight away!”
There were also a lot of questions about possible military uses for Galileo, to which Barrot replied, “Obviously there are civilian and military uses for this, but Galileo will remain a civilian system under civilian control, as the Council has reiterated time and time again. But that doesn’t mean that military users cannot use it, as long as they comply with certain principles. For example, we cannot stop the Italian Carabinieri or the Guarda Civil using Galileo to carry out their work, e.g. on search and rescue – these are military users.” He said Galileo “obviously cannot be off-limits to someone because they’re members of the military.” However he said he had no ‘mandate’ for discussing its military uses, saying he had tried to have conversations in London with ministers on this but lacked the necessary "mandate" for providing answers.
He summed up saying industry was “chomping at the bit” for Galileo, and that Europe must not wait, or it will fall further behind. Instead of wasting time asking “metaphysical” questions about its military uses etc, we should be seizing "Europe's chance to stay at the top of the league."
I feel so much clearer now...
PS nice summary of sentiments here : "According to the European Commission website, Galileo will be "fully operable in 2008 at the latest, with start of signal transmission in 2005." Let's hope the software is more up to date than the web page - If we're all going to be reamed for the cost of this unnecessary waste of cash - and we are - it would be nice if the ****ing thing works."
PPS - there's now a longer note on this whole issue on our website.
word games
BBC online seems to find it hard to talk about the new treaty neutrally:
Mrs Merkel is keen to hammer out a deal on the treaty aimed at modernising the structures of the EU before next month's summit in Brussels.
Mr Sarkozy has said he wants a simplified EU treaty to be ratified as quickly as possible by the French parliament.
So its going to be "modernising" and "simplifying" - exactly the UK Government line.
greenplating
Words we are bound to hear more of: "Greenplating".
Yvette Cooper just said it in parliament.
The Government is introducing Home Information Packs which go beyond the EU's requirement for Energy Performance Certificates. However she claimed: "Its not gold plating, its greenplating."
Uuuuugh. Actually its not "greenplating" - its just idiotic.
As we point out in a study today- if we we spent the money the Government is planning to flush down down the bog on "home energy surveys" on real green policies instead, then we could save 12 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
Yvette Cooper just said it in parliament.
The Government is introducing Home Information Packs which go beyond the EU's requirement for Energy Performance Certificates. However she claimed: "Its not gold plating, its greenplating."
Uuuuugh. Actually its not "greenplating" - its just idiotic.
As we point out in a study today- if we we spent the money the Government is planning to flush down down the bog on "home energy surveys" on real green policies instead, then we could save 12 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
What's wrong with the EU?
Really interesting book coming out from Simon Hix at the LSE.
Given that he is generally "pro", he has some pretty scathing comments about the limits of the EU's much vaunted new "transparency":
Under the rules agreed at the Seville European Council, debates in the Council are open to the public at two stages of the co-decision procedure: (1) during the initial stage, when the Commission presents its initial proposal and in the ensuing debate between the governments; and (2) during the final stage, when the public can see the final vote in the Council on a bill and hear the explanations of how each government votes.
The Council advertises which sessions are open and at what times on its website. However, Council debates are not open during the first reading of legislation under the co-decision procedure, after the initial debate on the Commission’s proposal, which is when the governments get down to the serious business of agreeing a ‘common position’ on the legislation. Deliberations are not open during the second reading of legislation, when the Council considers the amendments proposed by the European Parliament, nor at third reading, when the Council discusses whether to accept or reject a ‘joint text’ they have agreed with the European Parliament in the conciliation committee (which meets if the European Parliament and Council still disagree after two readings in each institution).
And, debates are not open at any stage of the consultation procedure, which is still used for almost half of all EU legislation. Hence, despite the recent changes, the Council is still probably the most secretive legislative chamber anywhere in the democratic world. One could even go as far as saying that the legislative process in the Chinese National People’s Congress is more transparent than the legislative process in the EU Council!
He takes a number of other things head on too. Looking at the idea that the EU just needs to work harder on its public relations he notes that:
The problem is that as people learn more about the EU, they start to understand that economic integration benefits some social groups more than others, that they pay significant amounts into the EU budget and do not see much in return, and that it is almost impossible for them to change the direction of EU policies.
Given that he is generally "pro", he has some pretty scathing comments about the limits of the EU's much vaunted new "transparency":
Under the rules agreed at the Seville European Council, debates in the Council are open to the public at two stages of the co-decision procedure: (1) during the initial stage, when the Commission presents its initial proposal and in the ensuing debate between the governments; and (2) during the final stage, when the public can see the final vote in the Council on a bill and hear the explanations of how each government votes.
The Council advertises which sessions are open and at what times on its website. However, Council debates are not open during the first reading of legislation under the co-decision procedure, after the initial debate on the Commission’s proposal, which is when the governments get down to the serious business of agreeing a ‘common position’ on the legislation. Deliberations are not open during the second reading of legislation, when the Council considers the amendments proposed by the European Parliament, nor at third reading, when the Council discusses whether to accept or reject a ‘joint text’ they have agreed with the European Parliament in the conciliation committee (which meets if the European Parliament and Council still disagree after two readings in each institution).
And, debates are not open at any stage of the consultation procedure, which is still used for almost half of all EU legislation. Hence, despite the recent changes, the Council is still probably the most secretive legislative chamber anywhere in the democratic world. One could even go as far as saying that the legislative process in the Chinese National People’s Congress is more transparent than the legislative process in the EU Council!
He takes a number of other things head on too. Looking at the idea that the EU just needs to work harder on its public relations he notes that:
The problem is that as people learn more about the EU, they start to understand that economic integration benefits some social groups more than others, that they pay significant amounts into the EU budget and do not see much in return, and that it is almost impossible for them to change the direction of EU policies.
Monday, 14 May 2007
How the times have changed
Many moons ago, when there were still people in Britain who thought that joining the euro was actually a good idea, this story that's just gone up on PA would have created a big fuss:
"Car giant Nissan has announced a deal with a developer which will see the creation of up to 4,000 jobs in Sunderland. The manufacturer will build a GBP4.5m extension to its Wearside plant, while property developers Wilton and Clugston will create a business park on another part of the Nissan site."
Those of you with long memories will no doubt recall that pro-euro campaigners used to make a great fuss about Nissan's repeated threats to leave Britain unless we joined up to the single currency. They used to tell us that the strong pound was ruining British business' competitiveness. They were wrong then and they're wrong now. According to the press release:
"The Sunderland factory has been Europe's most productive car plant for the past eight years".
Not expecting to see much coverage of this in tomorrow's papers...
"Car giant Nissan has announced a deal with a developer which will see the creation of up to 4,000 jobs in Sunderland. The manufacturer will build a GBP4.5m extension to its Wearside plant, while property developers Wilton and Clugston will create a business park on another part of the Nissan site."
Those of you with long memories will no doubt recall that pro-euro campaigners used to make a great fuss about Nissan's repeated threats to leave Britain unless we joined up to the single currency. They used to tell us that the strong pound was ruining British business' competitiveness. They were wrong then and they're wrong now. According to the press release:
"The Sunderland factory has been Europe's most productive car plant for the past eight years".
Not expecting to see much coverage of this in tomorrow's papers...
Friday, 11 May 2007
Listen and learn
Surprise surprise, EU-funded "citizen consultation" finds that the EU should have more powers.
What a total waste of everyone's time. No real people will feel that the EU is more "in touch" as a result of this.
What a total waste of everyone's time. No real people will feel that the EU is more "in touch" as a result of this.
Thursday, 10 May 2007
the ego has landed
Peter Mandelson swung by the party held by the German Presidency of the EU to mark Europe day yesterday (what, you couldn't feel the excitement on the streets?)
He gave a short speech which was followed by an German oompha band. Even by Mandelsonian standards it was an unusual (and unusually arch) speech. In between telling us that he was only there because he had been unexpectely "dumped" down in the UK, and informing the crowd that he would shortly be off for a hot bath (thanks for sharing) he went out of his way to praise David Cameron. He said that he had made the "best case for Europe" that he had heard in his recent Sunday Telegraph article.
The speccie's diary of a notting hill nobody also picks up on the Cameron-Mandelson love in, suggesting that "our Man in Brussels" had been helping out with anti-Brown attack lines.
Mandelson also noted that he "couldn't remember exactly when it was" that the Commission had collectively decided to allow dual metric / imperial measurements (as announced by Gunther Verhuegen in the European Parliament) by said he was confident that the "paper process would catch up eventually".
He gave a short speech which was followed by an German oompha band. Even by Mandelsonian standards it was an unusual (and unusually arch) speech. In between telling us that he was only there because he had been unexpectely "dumped" down in the UK, and informing the crowd that he would shortly be off for a hot bath (thanks for sharing) he went out of his way to praise David Cameron. He said that he had made the "best case for Europe" that he had heard in his recent Sunday Telegraph article.
The speccie's diary of a notting hill nobody also picks up on the Cameron-Mandelson love in, suggesting that "our Man in Brussels" had been helping out with anti-Brown attack lines.
Mandelson also noted that he "couldn't remember exactly when it was" that the Commission had collectively decided to allow dual metric / imperial measurements (as announced by Gunther Verhuegen in the European Parliament) by said he was confident that the "paper process would catch up eventually".
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
The Human Sandbag
In the Independent today Simon Carr returns to what is becoming one of his favourite games - lampooning Home Office Minister Joan Ryan. He writes:
"The Joan Ryan Club, a small but exclusive band of obsessives, will appreciate the following. There are some low minds who question the use of Ms Ryan. I've done so myself, I fear, in years gone by. But she is an essential figure in government. She is a sandbag. When a grenade is lobbed into the government trench she throws herself over it. Or maybe she gets thrown on to it. That is her talent. She is a blast-absorber."
The reason he returns to taunt Ryan is that the European Scrutiny Committee has just released a new report which is highly critical of her decision to agree to new EU legislation even though the Committee had not yet approved it and was still holding it under scrutiny reserve.
Ryan's defence was that she had just agreed to a "general approach" with other EU ministers rather than reaching full agreement before consulting the Committee. Some of her arguments are a reassuring reminder that the spirit of Sir Humphrey is alive and well in Whitehall:
"When we talk about "agreement on the text", that is in the common usage of the word "agreement". It is not in relation to political agreement as a definition of a final decision subject to the linguist lawyers at the European Union. Perhaps I can say that maybe usage of the word "agreement" has caused some confusion, and certainly, if that is the case, I would apologise for that and it is regrettable and that is one of things I will take back. When I mentioned issues such as working with the officials and staff training and trying to better monitor the match between our process here and our process in the EU, that is precisely one of the issues I will feed in."
"It is the case when you reach a general approach that one would expect substantive issues to be agreed upon around the Council table, or I think it would be very difficult to be able to reach a general approach. So if as a government we were not satisfied in relation to the issues within the proposal, if others round the table were very dissatisfied, then I think it would be difficult to reach a general approach, and I think that was the case in December. But is still remains the fact that when you reach a general approach, although there probably is agreement around the table on substantive issues, it is still subject to scrutiny reserve, the issue can still be reopened, and there are examples where in fact this has happened. There are not many, I agree. The reason there are not many is that the likelihood is substantive issues are agreed upon, or there is general agreement in the common usage of the word "agreement", before a general approach would be reached at a Council."
"The Joan Ryan Club, a small but exclusive band of obsessives, will appreciate the following. There are some low minds who question the use of Ms Ryan. I've done so myself, I fear, in years gone by. But she is an essential figure in government. She is a sandbag. When a grenade is lobbed into the government trench she throws herself over it. Or maybe she gets thrown on to it. That is her talent. She is a blast-absorber."
The reason he returns to taunt Ryan is that the European Scrutiny Committee has just released a new report which is highly critical of her decision to agree to new EU legislation even though the Committee had not yet approved it and was still holding it under scrutiny reserve.
Ryan's defence was that she had just agreed to a "general approach" with other EU ministers rather than reaching full agreement before consulting the Committee. Some of her arguments are a reassuring reminder that the spirit of Sir Humphrey is alive and well in Whitehall:
"When we talk about "agreement on the text", that is in the common usage of the word "agreement". It is not in relation to political agreement as a definition of a final decision subject to the linguist lawyers at the European Union. Perhaps I can say that maybe usage of the word "agreement" has caused some confusion, and certainly, if that is the case, I would apologise for that and it is regrettable and that is one of things I will take back. When I mentioned issues such as working with the officials and staff training and trying to better monitor the match between our process here and our process in the EU, that is precisely one of the issues I will feed in."
"It is the case when you reach a general approach that one would expect substantive issues to be agreed upon around the Council table, or I think it would be very difficult to be able to reach a general approach. So if as a government we were not satisfied in relation to the issues within the proposal, if others round the table were very dissatisfied, then I think it would be difficult to reach a general approach, and I think that was the case in December. But is still remains the fact that when you reach a general approach, although there probably is agreement around the table on substantive issues, it is still subject to scrutiny reserve, the issue can still be reopened, and there are examples where in fact this has happened. There are not many, I agree. The reason there are not many is that the likelihood is substantive issues are agreed upon, or there is general agreement in the common usage of the word "agreement", before a general approach would be reached at a Council."
Tuesday, 8 May 2007
all change
Johan Norberg has some great stats on globalisation, prompted by the news that the number of people in extreme poverty has fallen below a billion for the first time.
Not much to add to his list. Other nice facts: Every day 71,000 people in China log onto the internet for the first time; Edward Luce in his book on India mentions in passing that 60% of the world's buttons now come from one city in China; and if you are over 27, you are in the older half of the world's population.
Not much to add to his list. Other nice facts: Every day 71,000 people in China log onto the internet for the first time; Edward Luce in his book on India mentions in passing that 60% of the world's buttons now come from one city in China; and if you are over 27, you are in the older half of the world's population.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
pie charts and pork pies
The Commission have put out a press release trying to make a big deal out of their planned 2008 budget.
For the first time, spending on growth and employment policies will represent the highest share of the budget, ahead of agriculture and natural resources. This is the key message sent by the Commission in its budget proposals for 2008, adopted today.
If you still aren't convinced, there's even a pie chart showing that competitiveness now accounts for 44.2% of the budget (the 43.6% on farm spending is sliced in two to look smaller).
However, there are a number of small problems. One quibble is that the part of the so called "structural funds" budget (which sounds like it should be all about building roads) go on agriculture and fishing spending anyway. This 'hidden' agiculture spending appears to be increasing - it was up from 2.5% of the budget in 2002 to 4.2% in 2005, neatly tipping the balance from green to blue above. It will be interesting to see what has happened to it when the detail of the new 2008 budget comes out. Its also worth remembering that the total agricultural spend has gone up from €40.6 billion in 1997 to €56.3 billion now - so it's not like the spending has been slashed.
Secondly, and more importantly, does the budget for spending on "employment and growth" actually create employment and growth? Quite apart from the general question about whether what Europe needs now is yet more government spending, the EU's budget for "competitiveness and cohesion" is really just a rebranded way of talking about the old "structural" and "social" funds.
Is this money well spent? In the UK ,for example, it funds projects like designs for a plan to turn Barnsley into a "Tuscan Hill Village", or create a giant lake in the middle of Bradford. Elsewhere it leaves a slew of barely used motorways to remote areas, while in the richer member states it seems to lead to the building of a lot of community centres. Part of it goes on the ludicrous "interreg" programme which provides local councillors with nice jollies to other member states and things like the trans-manche assembly.
Is spending our money on this sort of thing rather than - say - cutting tax in deprived areas, really going to help us compete with China? The UK will be paying an average of £10.2 billion a year into the EU over the 2007-13 financial perspective. Imagine what you could do with the money...
For the first time, spending on growth and employment policies will represent the highest share of the budget, ahead of agriculture and natural resources. This is the key message sent by the Commission in its budget proposals for 2008, adopted today.
If you still aren't convinced, there's even a pie chart showing that competitiveness now accounts for 44.2% of the budget (the 43.6% on farm spending is sliced in two to look smaller).
However, there are a number of small problems. One quibble is that the part of the so called "structural funds" budget (which sounds like it should be all about building roads) go on agriculture and fishing spending anyway. This 'hidden' agiculture spending appears to be increasing - it was up from 2.5% of the budget in 2002 to 4.2% in 2005, neatly tipping the balance from green to blue above. It will be interesting to see what has happened to it when the detail of the new 2008 budget comes out. Its also worth remembering that the total agricultural spend has gone up from €40.6 billion in 1997 to €56.3 billion now - so it's not like the spending has been slashed.
Secondly, and more importantly, does the budget for spending on "employment and growth" actually create employment and growth? Quite apart from the general question about whether what Europe needs now is yet more government spending, the EU's budget for "competitiveness and cohesion" is really just a rebranded way of talking about the old "structural" and "social" funds.
Is this money well spent? In the UK ,for example, it funds projects like designs for a plan to turn Barnsley into a "Tuscan Hill Village", or create a giant lake in the middle of Bradford. Elsewhere it leaves a slew of barely used motorways to remote areas, while in the richer member states it seems to lead to the building of a lot of community centres. Part of it goes on the ludicrous "interreg" programme which provides local councillors with nice jollies to other member states and things like the trans-manche assembly.
Is spending our money on this sort of thing rather than - say - cutting tax in deprived areas, really going to help us compete with China? The UK will be paying an average of £10.2 billion a year into the EU over the 2007-13 financial perspective. Imagine what you could do with the money...
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Thursday, 26 April 2007
a nice point
about the Charter of Fundamental Rights in tomorrow's Economist
The extraordinary 12-point questionnaire sent out to EU governments by Ms Merkel in recent days is designed largely to explore possible ways of smuggling a new text past unwitting voters. Suggested tricks include sacrificing high-profile bits that do not matter (an article confirming that the EU anthem is the “Ode to Joy”); and hiding other sensitive bits, for instance the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a sweeping list of social rights, by replacing its full text with “a short cross-reference having the same legal value”. Those with long memories will recall that, when the charter was first proposed in 1999, the politicians argued that making fundamental rights “more visible to the union's citizens” was indispensable to the EU's legitimacy. Now, it seems, it is indispensable for the charter to vanish from sight altogether.
The extraordinary 12-point questionnaire sent out to EU governments by Ms Merkel in recent days is designed largely to explore possible ways of smuggling a new text past unwitting voters. Suggested tricks include sacrificing high-profile bits that do not matter (an article confirming that the EU anthem is the “Ode to Joy”); and hiding other sensitive bits, for instance the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a sweeping list of social rights, by replacing its full text with “a short cross-reference having the same legal value”. Those with long memories will recall that, when the charter was first proposed in 1999, the politicians argued that making fundamental rights “more visible to the union's citizens” was indispensable to the EU's legitimacy. Now, it seems, it is indispensable for the charter to vanish from sight altogether.
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
The EU is living in the past
Jose Barroso has been speaking to the IOD this afternoon.
He said that "A successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round could generate more than £100 billion of economic gains annually".
We keep saying that the EU is living in the past, but this is ridiculous. For the record - the Uruguay Round finished in 1994. The Doha round is the one which the EU is currently blocking through its unwillingness to budge on agriculture...
He said that "A successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round could generate more than £100 billion of economic gains annually".
We keep saying that the EU is living in the past, but this is ridiculous. For the record - the Uruguay Round finished in 1994. The Doha round is the one which the EU is currently blocking through its unwillingness to budge on agriculture...
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
making the case against democracy
with Andrew Moravcsik:
"Far from demonstrating of the failure and fragility of European integration, the collapse of the constitutional project in fact demonstrates the EU’s stability and success. Contemporary Europe rests on a pragmatically effective, normatively attractive and politically stable “European constitutional settlement,” embodied in the revised Treaties of
The draft constitution was, above all, an exercise in public relations... The basic idea was to legitimate the EU not, as had been the case since its origin, by facilitating mutually beneficial trade, regulation and economic growth, but instead by politicizing and democratizing it in a way that encouraged a shared sense of citizen engagement in a common project. In debating the “finalité politique” of
So in one paragraph the EU is "popular", and in another the EU's popularity is "sagging". Okaaay...
The effort to generate participation and legitimacy by introducing more populist and deliberative democratic forms was doomed to failure because it runs counter to our consensual social scientific understanding of how advanced democracies actually work. There is simply no empirical reason to believe, as the advocates of constitutional reform clearly believed, that opportunities to participate generate greater participation and deliberation, or that participation and deliberation generate political legitimacy.
I knew we must have been missing something all along! Democracy and participation are the problem!
Maybe we should just ban voting altogether and let "experts" who have agreed a "consensual social scientific understanding of how advanced democracies actually work" run everything. That certainly seems to be the implication.
Forcing participation [ha! - some chance] is likely to be counterproductive, because the popular response is condemned to be ignorant, irrelevant and ideological. Ignorant because individuals have no incentive to generate sufficient information to render concrete interests and political behavior consistent. As we see from the 50-year track record of EU referendums, elections, and conventions, the result is an information-poor, institutionally unstructured, and unstable plebiscitary politics.
Jeez - you let grubby little ordinary people start deciding stuff and where will it end? They might make decisions that are - gulp - ideological. Whatever next?
It should have come as no surprise to constitutional enthusiasts that, from the Laeken Declaration to the failed referenda, the constitutional process so utterly failed to inspire, engage, and educate European publics. Few citizens were aware of the 200 conventionnels’ deliberations, and at the end of the process, few could state what was in the resulting document. Constitutional aspirations and democratic reform seemed to have little effect on public knowledge.
An alternative view is that the failure of the ludicrous Giscard Convention doesn't demonstrate that engagement and democracy are themselves doomed to fail - only that the EU failed to engage and behave democratically. If no-one engaged in the Convention process (not completely true) is that surprising given Giscard’s total contempt for the opinions of anyone outside the
Ach - it is very difficult to sum this all up calmly. What we have here is the basic case against democracy, dressed up in the jargon of social science, and aimed at a sympathetic academic audience.
Or maybe that's too harsh. Maybe from a couple of thousands of miles away, it's just easier to miss the reality of this thing: when the EU dumps on developing countries in your name, runs your aid budget badly, costs your country billions a year, and tens of billions more through over-regulation, and when it fails to have its budget signed off for 12 years in a row, and (still!) makes laws in secret, then actually it's kind of irritating? Or maybe that's difficult to see when it doesn't affect you?
Monday, 23 April 2007
Some new red lines
The Sunday Times has a piece setting out the Government's four "Red lines" for the forthcoming negotiations. Needless to say, all of them are already pretty much agreed - so not likely to provoke a massive battle.
* Making it clear that its an "amending treaty" not a "constitution": check
* Getting out the Charter of Fundamental Rights: check
* Remove primacy over national law: check
* Getting rid of single legal personality for the EU: check?
As usual the red lines are all about distracting from what is being given up:
* EU President
* EU Foreign Minister (though they'll change the name)
* Voting changes to pass even more legislation (e.g. in criminal justice, or getting rid of our opt out from the social chapter...)
* Making it clear that its an "amending treaty" not a "constitution": check
* Getting out the Charter of Fundamental Rights: check
* Remove primacy over national law: check
* Getting rid of single legal personality for the EU: check?
As usual the red lines are all about distracting from what is being given up:
* EU President
* EU Foreign Minister (though they'll change the name)
* Voting changes to pass even more legislation (e.g. in criminal justice, or getting rid of our opt out from the social chapter...)
presentational changes
A letter from Angela Merkel to the other heads of Government seems to be doing the rounds.
The contents rather cut across the Government's line that the new treaty is going to be a completely "different animal" to the old European Constitution. In the letter she asks a series of questions which imply that the discussions are taking place in a spirit of pretty mindblowing cynicism. As far as we can see, the plan is to make as many "presentational changes" as necessary - while keeping the contents the same.
The things that jump out at us are suggestions that: “The consolidated approach of part one of the Constitutional Treaty is preserved with the necessary presentational changes.”
Also the proposal, “To use different terminology without changing the legal substance - for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of legal acts, and the unions minister of foreign affairs.”
And the plan to “Replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value.”
That last one seems unlikely as it would drive the CBI nuts if it happens: remember that the Government promised Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun that the Charter would have “no more legal force than the Sun or the Beano”. It has been gradually gaining legal force through relentless use by the ECJ - but putting it in the treaties would let the judges really go wild...
The whole thing gives an interesting insight into the state of the negotiations - the reference to legal primacy and the symbols of the EU will get the chop, there will be lots of opt-ins to placate various countries, and a renewed reference to the existing Copenhagen criteria as a sop to anti-enlargement types.
THOSE MERKEL QUESTIONS IN FULL
1 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States not to repeal the existing treaties but to return to the classical method of treaty changes while preserving the single legal personality and overcoming the pillar structure of the EU?
2 How do you assess in that case the proposal made by some Member States that the consolidated approach of part 1 of the Constitutional Treaty is preserved, with the necessary presentational changes resulting from the return to the classical method of treaty changes?
3 How do you assess in that case the proposal made by some Member States to use different terminology without changing the legal substance for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of EU legal acts and the Union’s Minister for Foreign Affairs?
4 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to drop the article that refers to the symbols of the EU?
5 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to drop the article which states the primacy of EU law?
6 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States that Member States will replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value?
7 Do you agree that the institutional provisions of the Constitutional Treaty form a balanced package that should not be reopened?
8 Are there other elements which in your view constitute indispensable parts of the overall compromise reached at the time?
9 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States concerning possible improvements/clarifications on issues related to new challenges facing the EU, for instance in the fields of energy/climate change or illegal immigration?
10 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to highlight the Copenhagen criteria in the article on enlargement?
11 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to address the social dimension of the EU in some way or the other?
12 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States applying opt-in/out provisions to some of the new policy provisions set out in the Constitutional Treaty?
The contents rather cut across the Government's line that the new treaty is going to be a completely "different animal" to the old European Constitution. In the letter she asks a series of questions which imply that the discussions are taking place in a spirit of pretty mindblowing cynicism. As far as we can see, the plan is to make as many "presentational changes" as necessary - while keeping the contents the same.
The things that jump out at us are suggestions that: “The consolidated approach of part one of the Constitutional Treaty is preserved with the necessary presentational changes.”
Also the proposal, “To use different terminology without changing the legal substance - for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of legal acts, and the unions minister of foreign affairs.”
And the plan to “Replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value.”
That last one seems unlikely as it would drive the CBI nuts if it happens: remember that the Government promised Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun that the Charter would have “no more legal force than the Sun or the Beano”. It has been gradually gaining legal force through relentless use by the ECJ - but putting it in the treaties would let the judges really go wild...
The whole thing gives an interesting insight into the state of the negotiations - the reference to legal primacy and the symbols of the EU will get the chop, there will be lots of opt-ins to placate various countries, and a renewed reference to the existing Copenhagen criteria as a sop to anti-enlargement types.
THOSE MERKEL QUESTIONS IN FULL
1 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States not to repeal the existing treaties but to return to the classical method of treaty changes while preserving the single legal personality and overcoming the pillar structure of the EU?
2 How do you assess in that case the proposal made by some Member States that the consolidated approach of part 1 of the Constitutional Treaty is preserved, with the necessary presentational changes resulting from the return to the classical method of treaty changes?
3 How do you assess in that case the proposal made by some Member States to use different terminology without changing the legal substance for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of EU legal acts and the Union’s Minister for Foreign Affairs?
4 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to drop the article that refers to the symbols of the EU?
5 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to drop the article which states the primacy of EU law?
6 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States that Member States will replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value?
7 Do you agree that the institutional provisions of the Constitutional Treaty form a balanced package that should not be reopened?
8 Are there other elements which in your view constitute indispensable parts of the overall compromise reached at the time?
9 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States concerning possible improvements/clarifications on issues related to new challenges facing the EU, for instance in the fields of energy/climate change or illegal immigration?
10 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to highlight the Copenhagen criteria in the article on enlargement?
11 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States to address the social dimension of the EU in some way or the other?
12 How do you assess the proposal made by some Member States applying opt-in/out provisions to some of the new policy provisions set out in the Constitutional Treaty?
there was no alternative
There's a complete transcript of Blair's interview last week on European Voice.
Blair argues that the decision to promise a referendum last time was based on what the public "believed" (wrongly) and the fact that "there wasn’t really an alternative". It also seems to have hinged on the use of the word "Constitution." So much for high principle.
------------
QUESTION
…where is the difference between the constitutional treaty and an amending treaty?
BLAIR
I think once you decide that you are going to as it were have one consolidating treaty and then a whole series of things, albeit things that in some ways you can say have their traditions in existing European treaty or in European traditions of one sort or another, I think you are into a different, you know you are arguing about something different for people. I mean I made exactly these arguments myself two or three years ago, but in the end I am afraid you have got to accept people believed that what they were getting was something fundamentally different from a normal conventional treaty, and you know one of the things in politics is you have got to listen to public opinion and I think here, but also elsewhere in Europe, people said well if it is something that you are describing as a constitution for Europe in that sense for the first time, in that way, that is something significantly different for us.
------------
Q:
You didn’t have to call a referendum, you did it and that put other leaders under pressure to organise a referenda with the results that we know. Do you regret that?
BLAIR
No, because there wasn’t really an alternative. Because you have to deal in politics with what people perceive and if you say we are getting rid of all the previous treaties, we are now having a treaty that is a constitution, people will look at it differently, and they did.
------------
It also sounds like the UK has been leading on the Poles to kick off about the institutional deal (which basically makes it easier to pass more regulations). But it doesn't sound like Blair is exactly going to support the Poles to the hilt:
QUESTION
Your Polish colleague has suggested that he would count on support from your side for a change in the voting system and for the reduction in the field of qualified majority voting. Would Great Britain support Poland to change the voting system?
BLAIR
Well look all of these issues we have to discuss, although we went through a very complicated process to get to the voting system. That is different from the QMV issue. But rather than as I say negotiate in public, I think the basic principle for me is we have got to accept you won’t get agreement, I don’t think, to a new constitutional treaty, what you can do is get agreement to a conventional amending treaty, a simplified treaty, that gives you the rules that make Europe more effective. Now exactly how that leaves you on voting and all the rest of it, that is a matter to discuss.
------------
There is a nice look at some of the logical contortions in the interview on the Economist's "Certain ideas of Europe" blog.
In summary, if I have this right, the constitution was good enough that Mr Blair would have been happy with it, but not good enough that anyone was going to vote Yes on it in any future referendum, which is why it was important that no-one else should be allowed to vote on it, or any mini-version of it, and especially important to make that clear before the French people had a chance to vote and elect a president who might be minded to give them a vote on any version of it. And Mr Blair knew he had to do all this, because that is what he heard the people telling him. Oh, to have the hearing of a prime minister.
Blair argues that the decision to promise a referendum last time was based on what the public "believed" (wrongly) and the fact that "there wasn’t really an alternative". It also seems to have hinged on the use of the word "Constitution." So much for high principle.
------------
QUESTION
…where is the difference between the constitutional treaty and an amending treaty?
BLAIR
I think once you decide that you are going to as it were have one consolidating treaty and then a whole series of things, albeit things that in some ways you can say have their traditions in existing European treaty or in European traditions of one sort or another, I think you are into a different, you know you are arguing about something different for people. I mean I made exactly these arguments myself two or three years ago, but in the end I am afraid you have got to accept people believed that what they were getting was something fundamentally different from a normal conventional treaty, and you know one of the things in politics is you have got to listen to public opinion and I think here, but also elsewhere in Europe, people said well if it is something that you are describing as a constitution for Europe in that sense for the first time, in that way, that is something significantly different for us.
------------
Q:
You didn’t have to call a referendum, you did it and that put other leaders under pressure to organise a referenda with the results that we know. Do you regret that?
BLAIR
No, because there wasn’t really an alternative. Because you have to deal in politics with what people perceive and if you say we are getting rid of all the previous treaties, we are now having a treaty that is a constitution, people will look at it differently, and they did.
------------
It also sounds like the UK has been leading on the Poles to kick off about the institutional deal (which basically makes it easier to pass more regulations). But it doesn't sound like Blair is exactly going to support the Poles to the hilt:
QUESTION
Your Polish colleague has suggested that he would count on support from your side for a change in the voting system and for the reduction in the field of qualified majority voting. Would Great Britain support Poland to change the voting system?
BLAIR
Well look all of these issues we have to discuss, although we went through a very complicated process to get to the voting system. That is different from the QMV issue. But rather than as I say negotiate in public, I think the basic principle for me is we have got to accept you won’t get agreement, I don’t think, to a new constitutional treaty, what you can do is get agreement to a conventional amending treaty, a simplified treaty, that gives you the rules that make Europe more effective. Now exactly how that leaves you on voting and all the rest of it, that is a matter to discuss.
------------
There is a nice look at some of the logical contortions in the interview on the Economist's "Certain ideas of Europe" blog.
In summary, if I have this right, the constitution was good enough that Mr Blair would have been happy with it, but not good enough that anyone was going to vote Yes on it in any future referendum, which is why it was important that no-one else should be allowed to vote on it, or any mini-version of it, and especially important to make that clear before the French people had a chance to vote and elect a president who might be minded to give them a vote on any version of it. And Mr Blair knew he had to do all this, because that is what he heard the people telling him. Oh, to have the hearing of a prime minister.
Friday, 20 April 2007
er...
Blair in Le Monde this morning:
"we must listen to the people"
So why does he say in the same interview that he is ruling out a referendum?
Why does he say in the same interview that he is "not going to negotiate in public?"
Maybe we just haven't understood... Is this some kind of weird French pardoxical thing aimed at Gauloise-smoking, black polo neck wearing, rive auche intellectuel types?
Whatever it is, please stop - you're making our head hurt.
"we must listen to the people"
So why does he say in the same interview that he is ruling out a referendum?
Why does he say in the same interview that he is "not going to negotiate in public?"
Maybe we just haven't understood... Is this some kind of weird French pardoxical thing aimed at Gauloise-smoking, black polo neck wearing, rive auche intellectuel types?
Whatever it is, please stop - you're making our head hurt.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Wriggle wriggle
Blair has done an interview for some of the European papers for tomorrow. He argues that if the forthcoming treaty doesn't change the fundamental constitutional basis of the UK's arrangement with the EU, then there isn't a case for a referendum.
This argument is dishonest because Blair and the Government never did accept that the Constitution changed the basis of Britain's relationship with the EU. Their promise of a referendum was never made on the basis that they had accepted that.
At the time Blair said, "There should be a referendum in circumstances in which there is a proposal to alter fundamentally the Government's constitutional arrangements. That is not the case with the European Convention"
As Denis MacShane said at the time: “If, hypothetically, there was such a fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the European Union that a referendum was justified, then you would have to look at it. But there is absolutely no evidence on this.”
The Government didn't concede a referendum in 2004 because it had accepted the principled arguments that were being made in its favour.
It's curious in a way that - instead of a 'wait and see' line, the Government are already moving towards ruling out a referendum: never mind how radical the new treaty is. It seems odd that they are closing off their options so early.
Surely the media will start asking Brown whether he plans to go along with this deeply unpopular plan to take away out right to a vote? Or is the idea to use Blair as some kind of 'sacrificial anode' so that Brown gets less grief later? If so, it doesn't seem likely to work.
Our predictions?
(a) This isn't going to help in the local elections and (b) the Government - and particularly Gordon Brown - is going to spend the next few months dealing with endless questions about what would, or would not, be enough to trigger a referendum. Is this how Brown really wants to start his premiership?
This argument is dishonest because Blair and the Government never did accept that the Constitution changed the basis of Britain's relationship with the EU. Their promise of a referendum was never made on the basis that they had accepted that.
At the time Blair said, "There should be a referendum in circumstances in which there is a proposal to alter fundamentally the Government's constitutional arrangements. That is not the case with the European Convention"
As Denis MacShane said at the time: “If, hypothetically, there was such a fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the European Union that a referendum was justified, then you would have to look at it. But there is absolutely no evidence on this.”
The Government didn't concede a referendum in 2004 because it had accepted the principled arguments that were being made in its favour.
It's curious in a way that - instead of a 'wait and see' line, the Government are already moving towards ruling out a referendum: never mind how radical the new treaty is. It seems odd that they are closing off their options so early.
Surely the media will start asking Brown whether he plans to go along with this deeply unpopular plan to take away out right to a vote? Or is the idea to use Blair as some kind of 'sacrificial anode' so that Brown gets less grief later? If so, it doesn't seem likely to work.
Our predictions?
(a) This isn't going to help in the local elections and (b) the Government - and particularly Gordon Brown - is going to spend the next few months dealing with endless questions about what would, or would not, be enough to trigger a referendum. Is this how Brown really wants to start his premiership?
MoD predicts future chaos
The First Post has picked up on a Ministry of Defence Global Strategic Trends paper that looks ahead to 2037.
Their vision apparently includes lawless mega cities, neutron bombs and 'electromagnetic pulse weapons' with the power to destroy enemy communications systems in a potential 'world city'. They also speculate that young Europeans might vote for euthanasia to reduce the costs of ageing populations and that dictators might develop age reversing drugs so they can stay in power for ever. They also suggest that the middle classes might become the new revolutionaries in society taking the place of Marx's proletariat.
The answer to these scary scenarios? Unsurprisingly they suggest more surveillance and greater military force. Worth a read.
Their vision apparently includes lawless mega cities, neutron bombs and 'electromagnetic pulse weapons' with the power to destroy enemy communications systems in a potential 'world city'. They also speculate that young Europeans might vote for euthanasia to reduce the costs of ageing populations and that dictators might develop age reversing drugs so they can stay in power for ever. They also suggest that the middle classes might become the new revolutionaries in society taking the place of Marx's proletariat.
The answer to these scary scenarios? Unsurprisingly they suggest more surveillance and greater military force. Worth a read.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)