Thursday, March 31, 2011

Open letter to Mary Honeyball

Dear Ms Honeyball,

On Sunday, as you remark on your blog, you took part in the Sunday Times Webchat.

You were asked a question about UKIP,

Q: what is your opinion about anti-EU parties like the ukip? are their concerns about a too powerful union legitimate?
You answered
mary honeyball mep: UKIP are not a mainstream political party in the UK. Their only base is in the European Parliament where you may be interested to know that they make very little contribution. I do not believe their concerns about a “too powerful” EU are at all legitimate. The fact is that the EU has competence over only a limited range of issues – agriculture, fishing, some environment and some justice and home affairs, some trade and some industrial aid policy. Since Britain is not in the euro, the EU does not have a lot of control there. Social security, health,economic management and many other of the really important areas are with members states. UKIP is scaremongering, playing on fear.
I would like you to justify this series of claims.
1) UKIP are not a mainstream political party in the UK.
UKIP are on 8% in the polls, and just came second in the latest by-election. From taxation, to education, to prisons, to the environment, to mass migration and of course to EU membership itself the opinions of UKIP chime closely with a large section of the British population. Hard to describe us as outside the mainstream.
2) Their only base is in the European Parliament where you may be interested to know that they make very little contribution.
UKIP contributes fully in the European Parliament, in the light of their electoral mandate. Unlike the Labour party UKIP was not elected to write reports and create new unnecessary legislation, but to hold the EU to account. That is what we do.
3) I do not believe their concerns about a “too powerful” EU are at all legitimate.
It depends on what you mean by too, and what you mean by powerful. I personally wouldn't give the EU any control over our lives, you it seems would hand over complete control of our lives. Different perspectives you see Mary. I regard your position as legitimate, though wrongheaded, you after all have been elected to represent that view. You would do well to consider other points of view as legitimate. Just as a matter of common courtesy.
4) The fact is that the EU has competence over only a limited range of issues –
Now this is where what you say gets interesting.
agriculture, fishing, some environment and some justice and home affairs, some trade and some industrial aid policy.
You see Mary, this is what the EU says,
EU competence

The EU is exclusively responsible for:

• Customs Union

• Establishment of competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market

• Monetary policy for member states which use the euro

• Conservation of the biological resources of the sea as part of the common fisheries policy

• Common trading policy

• The conclusion of an international agreement when this is within the framework of EU legislation or when it is necessary to help the EU exercise an internal competence or if there is a possibility of the common rules being affected or of their range being changed.
So the EU is exclusively responsible for these matters, not some. Note trade is there,

You say,
Since Britain is not in the euro, the EU does not have a lot of control there. Social security, health, economic management and many other of the really important areas are with members states.
 They say

Joint competence of EU and member states

The EU and the member states are jointly responsible for:

• Internal market

• Social policy with regard to specific aspects defined in the Treaty

• Economic, social and territorial cohesion

• Agriculture and fisheries except for the conservation of the biological resources of the sea

• Environment

• Consumer protection

• Transport

• Transeuropean networks

• Energy

• Area of freedom, security and justice

• Joint security issues with regard to aspects of public health

• Research, technological development and space

• Development cooperation and humanitarian aid.
In these areas the nation state can make decisions if, and only if the EU hasn't already made decisions in those areas.

You claim that some areas of policy are still for the UK to make. These include Social policy, which as you can see is included in the joint competence area above. They include Health. As I am sure you are aware the GMC yesterday made it clear that EU directives are harming healthcare options in the NHS. Before the GMC, the Royal College of Surgeons, the BMA and other health bodies have all criticised the impact of EU regulations on health options. The EU has included the UK into its macro economic policy including the Eurozone bailout. The EU has now taken over the regulation of the financial sector, which as a London MEP you will well know disproportionably effects the City. The EU now sets policy for education, for arts policy for a whole range of areas.

So do tell me Mary what are the " many other of the really important areas" of policy which remain in the hands of the nation state?

You claim in the end that
"UKIP is scaremongering, playing on fear".
We are not, we only want a perfectly reasonable thing, that the people of this country make the laws of this country, and have the ability and right to hire and fire their government. It is called self determination and it is enshrined in the UN charter. You cannot have a problem with that surely?.

I think you are dissembling, playing on ignorance.

Yours sincerely,

Gawain Towler

Stop Pervenche

Thanks to a kind soul who sent me this, following my piece yesterday about Pervenche Berès.

There is, as he puts it, and ap for that

Stop Pervenche

The Moneyball: I wannna get on TV... not fair

Poor Hairy, poor poor Hairy, she really does feel that she should be listened to.

The truth is the British media seems to be dominated by the likes of Nigel Farage, who comes across as media friendly and provides good TV. The Boris Johnson of Europe I Suppose. How many times has the Labour leader in Europe, or the Conservative for that matter, appeared on Question Time? They haven’t. But Farage who isn’t a member of a mainstream political party in this country receives disproportionate coverage precisely because he’s considered to be so entertaining.

Cripes. Doesn't she realise that TV is, in part at least about entertainment. Doesn't she realise the reason that Farage gets more coverage than all the other MEPs put together is that he is both entertaining and that he represents a significant section of the public that otherwise stuggles to get heard. There are dozens of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem politicians who get coverage in the mainstream media. Indeed I never heard Ms. Moneyball complaining when Caroline Lucas gets plenty of coverage (both when she was an MEP and now she is teh sole Green MP). In fact UKIP get far less coverage than their electoral percentage should allow. We picked up 3.5% of the national vote in last years elections. Under strick proportionality that would suggest that UKIP should get onto say 3% of the time. UKIP gets 2 Question Times a year, we should get about 5 or 6 spots over the year. So it isn't actually about that is it?

No it is that she has still to get over the fact that at the European elections UKIP beat the Labour Party. Remember what she had to say at the time,
Yesterday UKRep, the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union, held their traditional reception to welcome British MEPs to the European Parliament.It was, for me, a deeply depressing experience.  Not only were most of the UKIP MEPs present; they were also accompanied by young women in fairly flimsy purple dresses. 
 Those dresses were, of course, "indicative of UKIP’s undisguised sexism". Her post then and her whining article today are indicative of her own undisguised dullness and shrillness.


Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Beyond Economic Good Sense

Perverse Berès is a French socialist, (and a professional politicain having never had a job outside politics as far as her CV goes) so I suppose we shouldn't be asking too much of her. However she sits on the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European parliament and has a habit of coming up with stuff. Which is doing to the full extent of her capacities on Monday when she launches this on the world. Her own initiative report is nothing if not ambitious. The report itself is for the special Committee set up by the Parliament in response to the financial crisis and is a perfect example of the old refrain in Brussels, that if their is a question the answer is always 'More Europe'. So here is the considered opinion of the new Committee,

Report on the Financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken
And what marvels of economic perspicacity shall we find therein? (My italics)
Taxation
41. Stresses that both EMU and the internal market require a stronger shift towards tax harmonisation; supports the Commission in its efforts to tackle harmful tax competition,
or this
Migration
37. Emphasises that both the major revolutions in our neighbourhood regions and demographic developments within the EU call for a common migration policy; stresses that greater mobility of labour must be encouraged by granting equal employment and social conditions and rights for all workers, together with the possibility of transferring social security and pension benefits;
or maybe this,
III.The case for a new monetary system
24. Recognises the global concern about the functioning of the international monetary system and calls for a major leap forward to be taken as a matter of urgency; requests, therefore, the setting up of a new international monetary system (IMS) aimed at systematic and comprehensive macroeconomic cooperation with sustainable and balanced global growth;...
26. Calls, furthermore, for thought to be given - in the long term – to the possibility of creating a global reserve currency based on the development and transformation of (Special Drawing Rights) SDRs and of the IMF;
Or even this,
4. Underlines the fact that that the sovereign debt crisis revealed the risks of intra-European imbalances; stresses the need for the EU to react as one, to develop a common European fiscal policy with a sufficient EU budget and to put in place adequate provisions for crisis
management and economic and fiscal convergence;
And to cap it all this,
6. Calls for a comprehensive, socially inclusive and cohesive reform package addressing the fundamental underlying causes of the public debt crisis, to include the establishment of a European Treasury to strengthen the economic pillar of EMU;
I know that this is an own initiative report, but so was the initial report on the creation of three new EU regulatory bodies for the finacial markets, so was the Hedge Fund Directive. The Conservative lead coalition did not stop them and now they sit over the City, bearing down upon it and driving business away from the UK. Remember too that the EPP, the PSE, the ALDE the Green s and the Communists are all on record supporting this (see link above). And then just have a look at this little report in the Telegraph today,
But Flint very deliberately at the end of his speech highlighted the growth expected in the Far East and how well positioned HSBC is there in terms of funding and ability to grow. Mike Geoghegan, when HSBC chief executive, relocated his job there. If it pays for shareholders, then moving the legal and regulatory base abroad will occur first. As the bank’s centre of gravity shifts, other operations will follow.

London will never be emptied of bankers but there’ll simply be less of the economically most important ones. And that goes for customers too, as the old adage of “follow the money” once again rings true.
So now is the time to stop all this, not two years hence when everything is done and dusted, and the UK's freedom of movement and its single biggest revenue earner is a thing of the past.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

#rallyagainstdebt

Have to say that this is a bit of fun, but of course with a serious import.

A well mannered, polite rally for civilised people who don't wish to see their hard earned money being spent on pointless government initiatives and instead would like government spending to actually fall and our national debt to be cut.
So go along and join up, as things stand it has only 249,500 confirmed attendees as the major march/riot last weekend. But,
1) it is entirely unfunded.
2) it has no media backin
g
So 500 in a few hours is pretty good. Get a thousand by tomorrow evening and I think it is a goer.

What it needs is to get out of the ghetto in which it currently sits of largely young classical Liberal types, think tankers Tories and Ukipers.

What it needs to do is to be taken up by a few sane people in the small business movement. Maybe the FSB should come aboard. Maybe the TPA should activate its membership base.

Stuff your gob with Polish grub

I bring you a couple more invitations to eat drink and be merry, for free. This week is Polish week in the European Parliament.


This one is tonight
And this one is tomorrow.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold

Peter Spiegel at the FT is pointing out rather elegantly that across Europe the political class are sffering. Merkle in Germany, Sarko in France, Burlesconi has his travails and in Portugal Socrates has been dumped. This is both a problem with encumbancy and strikes both left and right.

What he notes is the rise of other parties across Europe. Each country has its own version of the protest party that picks up the votes. In France it is the Front Nationale, in Holland it is Wilders and the PPV. Italy the Lega, Finland has Timo and the True Finns, and so on and so forth.

they are all very different and all very much part ofthe national background from whence they spring, the FN are more nationalist than some, the PVV more concerned about Islamic immigration for example.

But what they share is a distrust, nay dislike of Brussels and the European elite, which is why they are making ground on their traditional political/national leaderships and parties. The old order is tainted with the failures of the EU.

How to explain the disparity? Part of the explanation is likely simple anti-incumbency. If the centre-right leaders in France and Germany share anything with the collapsed governments in Portugal and Ireland it’s the simple fact that they were the ones in office when the anger started to rise.

But a trend worth watching is the rise of the populist movements on the far right. The National Front certainly played an important role in the recent French elections, and the populist True Finns have sucked support from all three mainstream parties in Finland, to where they’re now projected to finish in second place. In the Netherlands, the right-wing party of Geert Wilders has garnered headlines (and votes) for its anti-Muslim rhetoric, but is equally anti-EU. (my italics)
Of course he mises out the UK. Here the main recipient of this growing disatisfaction, if the ongoing polling in the UK is anything to go by, is UKIP, which like the others is a plant grown from a seed in its own land. Unlike the continetal variety we do not have a strong authoritarian streak, more national liberal than national socialist.

But UKIP is well poised to garner increasing numbers of votes as its simple messages of national, local and personal self determination gain sway amongst a greater and greater number of Britons.

Lies, damn lies and Eurobarometer Surveys

Eurobarometer (about which more later) has just released a survey into driving in the EU, the results of which have been taken up by this headline in Euractive,

Europeans happy to pay more taxes for more driving
Yeah, of course they are.
In preparation for a White Paper on transport published yesterday (28 March), the Commission's directorate-general for transport commissioned a Eurobarometer study to assess the popularity of one of the EU executive's proposals, referred to as "pay as you drive" taxation.

The idea is to internalise all costs of driving, such as congestion, noise pollution and accidents, and to make people pay for the services they actually use.

In this, the proposal resembles the Eurovignette scheme, which affects heavy trucks and is currently being used on roads in Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden.

The new tax system would replace the current 'flat rate' of registration and road tax, which do not take into account at what time or how often a driver uses a vehicle, nor the noise and pollution levels of the vehicle.

50% of the respondents supported the new scheme; 16% were strongly in favour. 31% were opposed to such a system, of whom 13% were strongly against the scheme. A little under 20% of respondents were undecided.
Does this mean that EU citizens (natch) actually suport higher taxes? Lets look at the question.
To what extent do you agree with replacing existing car charges such as registration and circulation taxes with charging schemes that take into account the actual use of the car such as the kilometers driven, or the use of it in peak hours?
Nope. No mention of higher taxes. Yes people thought that there may be different ways of working out how a tax should be raised, but absolutely no mention of higher taxes here.

They lie. Or at least Euractive lie.

Monday, March 28, 2011

EU RIP

Go on chaps, do your worst.

You name it! The race is on to name the new EU Research and Innovation Programme

My bid is EU R I P

Seems sensible to me

This slightly worries me: Russia in the Indian ocean

Geo-politics is often about geography.

Therefore this news is a little concerning.

Seychelles and Russia are set to deepen cooperation over security issues
After all I always thought that the idea of Russia having a strong Indian Ocean presence was one of those Palmerstonian 'permanent national interests' things that we were taught about at school.
Areas of for further cooperation focused on specialized training opportunities for Seychellois personnel, Seychelles' participation in Russian-led international security forums, and greater coordination of military assets in the region.
Which I would have thought is an ingtersting development, and not one to welcomed

Hubris... Anyone? The EU has conquered sleep...etc

The Comissioner for shooting her mouth off, Viviane Reding today had this to say,

Over the past months, the European Central Bank and the European Commission – the two most supranational institutions of the Union – have fought hand in hand for the stability of the euro. We worked together in the interest of Europe's citizens and future generations. Following last week's European Council, we are now turning the page: we have saved the euro.
Not only that she is so triumphant about last week's meeting in Brussels she is moved to say more,
we have finally moved towards completing our Monetary Union with an Economic Union
Now given that she is the Vice-President of the Commission, I guess she has the authority and expertise to say this.
Her mandate states that she is qualified to talk about,
Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
And her CV tells us that her extensive knowledge in the operations of the broader economy include her experience in Culture, journalism, Social Affairs, Civil Liberties and IT.

She is obviously better qualified to judge than this lot, or him.

European Parliament hit by Cyber Attack

The IT chaps at the EP must have been feeling left out. All last week the Commission and the EEAS were under attack, and now it seems it is the Parliament's turn. According to an internal notice the attack on the Parliament

we detected many attempts during the weekend which were successfully repulsed. We are working relentlessly and progressing with the identification of the sources of the attack to allow us to provide a strategic response.
It appears that various systems have been hit,
External access to webmail, EPNet, Terminal Server and Mobile Office will remain closed until at least Tuesday 29 March inclusive.

Chocolate cakes for everyone

Here we go again. The car, after maybe electricity has been the key driver of mankind's emancipation. So it should be no surprise that the EU wants to ban it.

This is what the EU is trying to do, whilst spending 2.5 trillion Euros of our cash,

Its key goals by 2050 are:

* No more conventionally fuelled cars in cities;

* 40% use of sustainable low-carbon fuels in aviation; at least a 40% cut in shipping emissions;

* A 50% shift of medium distance inter-city passenger and freight journeys from road to rail and waterborne transport.
As Christopher Monckton puts it,
"They want to ban cars from cities, they want to force everybody on to rail and canals - it is as if they have been taken over by the shade of the Victorian engineers.

"Of course they also want to 'move close to zero fatalities in road transport' - and of course if they ban vehicles they may go some way to achieve this - but at what cost to liberty and freedom?"

"They may as well call for an end to wars and large subsidised chocolate cakes for pre-school infants."






Thursday, March 24, 2011

Little by little UKIP are overhauling the Lib Dems

The latest poll from Angus Reid tells its own story


And the growth is regular and sustained

Mar. 18-21  8%
Mar. 3-4 7%
Jan. 25-26 6%
Jan. 6-7,  5%
Dec. 5%



"Putting a dog in charge of a sausage"

Is the rather choice phrase used to describe the activities of the three MEPs busted by the Sunday Times for corruption.

However the fall out from this affair could be worse than the problem itself.

In future, European deputies should be banned from all other paid activities, centre-right MEP Monica Macovei told EUobserver in a telephone interview on Wednesday (23 March).


"MEPs have five years in the European parliament to legislate for EU citizens. It's a full-time job and I don't see why they should have another one in parallel," Macovei said.

"We have salaries, we are paid to do this," added the former Romanian minister of justice (2004-2007) who won international plaudits for her efforts to root out high level corruption, including when cabinet colleagues were implicated.
I do not believe this is the lesson to be drawn, the lesson to be drawn is that the rules as they stand should be more rigerously applied, and when an MEP breaks them a big book should be thrown at them.

Yesterday's decision to fine Den Dover, rather than to through him in chokey is a case in point. In Britain corrupt politicians, as Mr Isley has discovered get sent to gaol.

But cutting them off from outside interests would be a harmful step. Crikey few enough of them have any experience of the outside world, to denude the place still further wouold be the height of folly.
It is interesting to note that the Sunday Times insight team's feet have hardly touched the ground since the story broke, with massive interest in the story across the continent. Even the humble Brussels correspondent for the Sunday, Bojan Panchevski has been dragged round the TV studios as an expert in MEP's corruption. Of course not a single British radio or TV station nor newspaper has shown any interest, barring a few desoultry mentions on inside pages on the Monday.

This shows a few things,
1: Britain expects MEPs to be corrupt
2: Britain doesn't give a damn about the European Parliament
and most interestingly
3: The European Par liament is taken seriously on the Continent. They, because their national politicians either don't, or cannot pretend otherwise realise that power has swung away from their national Parliaments and resides increasingly in Brussels.
I do wish our media would wake up, and stop having the wool pulled over their eyes by the Westminster elite.

At least they have a House for it

Carl Bildt has warned that,

Europe risks becoming a "museum" and "irrelevant".
Which is rather charming as the Telegraph reports today on the old story of the House of European History, where no doubt the European Union could comfotrably ensconce itself.

I have to say I colour myself surprised that the Telegraph have run this story now, three weeks after the Express with nothing different in the take other than the quoted member is a Belgian colleague of the Tories rather than UKIP, as we picked up the story back in 2009 via Bruno himself.

Worse still is that he allows the European Parliament to get away with a low figure for the annual costs, as since the Express story ran on the 6th March more figures have come to light, as I reported last week,
The £53.2 million start up cost of the museum and £6.3 million in estimated annual costs, not including staffing, have led the parliament's budget committee to complain "there is still no overview of the global cost of the project available".
There is an overview, they have admitted that the costs will be 13.45 Million Euros (about £11.75 million pounds per annum).

Only in Devon

I love Devon, a county of great beauty and better people. But every now and then something pops up that fits a certain stereotype. Today is one of those days.

A serial pervert with a fetish for cow manure who terrorised a farmer and his family for six years has been jailed for two years.

David Truscott, 41, was discovered in a field, covered in manure and mud and naked apart from a single sock, by the farmer’s 16-year-old son on February 26 this year.
I know his actions are ghastly, and I know it must have been vile for the family, but still...

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

EU CIA?


As we worry about the budget and odd ideas that the UK Government can somehow exempt UK small businesses from new regulations for three years(ECJ anyone?) I note that this event is happening.

The bumpf that acconmpanies this event at least accepts that for now Intelligence remains a national competence,
National security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State, as the Lisbon Treaty clearly defines.
But, it goes on, but,
At the same time the Stockholm Programme calls for very specific issues to be dealt with, in particular the division of tasks between the Union and the MS, solidarity between MS, reflection of a proactive and intelligence-led approach, stringent cooperation between the Union agencies, including further improving their information exchange, a focus on implementation and streamlining as well as on improvement of preventive action and last but not least at all: the aim of making citizens aware of the importance of the Union’s work to protect them.
Apart from the fact that I have no wish for the EU to work to protect me thank you very much this is deeply worying. More so when we look further. These high faluting chaps like Ferenc BÁNFI, the boss of the European Police College, who trained and served as a Communist era policemen, who has an extremely bizarre website, and is committed to the creation of an EU FBI, seem to be pointing a different direction.
Can Europe afford having fragmented intelligence presence across the globe in a world of rising global threats and global competition? Is it realistic to start thinking about the foundations of a future common EU intelligence?
I would have thought that we can co-operate of course but there is no need to amalgamate.

One thing is very interesting is its terminology is this statement,
What are the key aspects of building trusted relationships between the symbolic authorities of national sovereignty in the European Union?
Not real authorities, but symbolic.

They need to be good

The Council of Europe is advertising for a Human Rights spinner. For a salary of nearly €70,000 plus benefits such as heavily subsidised private education  and,

i. expatriation allowance of 18% (staff with family to support) or 14% (single rate) of the monthly rate shown above for unmarried staff;

ii. dependent children's allowance (current rate 305.02 € per child per month) and, where appropriate, an expatriation supplement of 85.39 € per child.
The expatriation allowance is not about removals it seems to be for hurt feelings about having to move to Strasbourg and lasts as long as the job does.

And you will have your work cut out trying to explain to the British press why the CoE and its associated Court the ECHR has taken over the role of arbiter of what is and isn't allowed in the UK, and why the CoE and the ECHR should have the power to overturn the democratioc will of the British people on a huge range of issues.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Building love

I still don't understand the rash of EU prizes (and am pleasantly surprised that the Sycophancy prize has been denounced in the Budget Committee.

Mr Itala, a pro-European MEP, has also been angered over a "paternalist" prize for journalism, worth £17,500 a year, to reward press coverage that "promoted a better understanding of the EU".
"I really don't understand why we are giving money to journalists whose task should be to be critical of EU institutions. It is not my idea of democracy," he said.
"I really don't understand why we are giving money to journalists whose task should be to be critical of EU institutions. It is not my idea of democracy," he said.
But don't worry, one might get slated but there are all sorts of other ideas on which to waste your cash. This time they are bunging your money at architects.

After all this list of jobbing builders are hardly on the poor side, so why is the Commission co funding the €60 000 prize? It is not as if there aren't plenty of awards out there already.

It is not, and I repeat myself, not the business of a political construct to decide what is and isn't good art. Nor good pop music, nor anything of the sort. It is just wrong, and suspect and should be stopped.

Denmark still a long way from the Euro

Whilst its governing class are keen to bounce the country into the Euro, it would take quite some bounce if latest polling data is anything to go by.

Statistics Denmark has a quarterly poll on the subject and of those certain to vote it looks as if those ambitions remain that, ambitions,

Looking solely at those voters who feel certain about which way they would vote, the No lead is actually even greater than the above-mentioned 9.9 ppt. Only 27.9% of Danes would be certain Yes voters, 43.0% are certain they would vote No – a large 15.1 ppt difference.
The Prime Minster said the referendum would happen before summer 2011. He had better hurry up.

Oaten's mink merkin

MarkOaten who famously admitted that his hair loss caused him to have a rent boy crap on his glass table, has decided to stop his hair loss by accepting a job with the fur trade.

It seems to be all over the press but maybe we must give the credit of spotting it first to the Daily Mail,

Several years ago the IFTF, now headed by the disgraced former Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten, developed the scheme known as Origin Assured. This offers ‘assurances on the humane treatment of animals’. So how does this claim stand up? Under this scheme, fur trappers are still allowed to use leg-hold traps and to crush and drown animals.

Do they mean us?


I think they might

Timo Soini shows UKIP the way forward

Timo Soini: A true Finn
The value of voting for and electing UKIP councillors, MPs and MEPs is underlined today in news from Finland. The FT today reports that the whole EU financial package may founder on the rock that is Timo Soini. Timo is the leader of the True Finns, and is looking like the kingmaker in the upcoming Finish elections. He is also a good personal friend and damn fine chap. 

At issue is the eurozone’s €440bn bail-out fund. Although finance ministers on Monday agreed the structure of a new €500bn fund that will come into effect in two years, the current system cannot use its full financial firepower to rescue failing economies, a move seen as essential if large countries such as Spain and Italy are pushed into bail-outs.
The idea is that rich countries up their exposure to support poor countries, and Finland is one of them,
The easiest and, for many weeks, most likely outcome appeared to be leaning on the eurozone’s six triple A-rated countries, including Finland, to double their loan guarantees, a move reluctantly supported by even Germany, which would have to increase guarantees most.
But, and here's the rub. There is the general election in Finland and Mr Soini is causing electoral mayhem.

The issue is particularly acute for Mari Kiviniemi, the Finnish prime minister, whose Centre party fell to third place in a TNS Gallup poll released last week, behind the National Coalition and the surging, populist True Finns, led by Timo Soini, a charismatic Eurosceptic.
The point of al this is that Soini,

whose party is now just two points behind the front-running National Coalition – and who has vowed to block any increase in Finnish commitments. Without unanimity in the eurozone, the deal could fall apart.
What Timo and the True Finns are doing is showing the power of the growing tide of Euroscepticism across Europe. Picking up votes from acros the board as ever increasing numbers of people realise that the old establishment political elite neither speak for them, nor have any wish to do so.

If the decision on Friday is baulked, Mr Soini could well become one of the most important men across the continent.

And as a Millwall fan, he doesn't care if the elite doesn't like him. he is used to that.

Monday, March 21, 2011

MSM catch up

Everybody likes to point to out when people follow a story, so here is my tupp'enth.

Here is the


Daily Express front page today
BRUSSELS will attempt to "rig" any referendum asking the British people if they want to quit the EU, it emerged last night.
It would unleash a multi-million pound pro-Europe propaganda campaign – and get UK taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Details of the plot come as support grows for the Daily Express crusade for Britain to pull out of the EU.
Controversial new rules mean that European political parties can use public cash to publicise their campaigns in referendums in any member country.
Critics said the “outrageous” move would allow MEPs to spend tens of millions of pounds on trying to convince Britons that the UK should stay in Europe.
And here is England Expects last Tuesday,
They are changing the rules on political funding in Brussels to ensure that your money can be spent on running campaigns in any future EU referendum,
Ho Hum

When is a regulation not a regulation?

When it is an EU regulation of course.

The Government has set great stock by its red tape cutting approach. One in, One out is the cry. Here is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills statement from last year,

a new approach that will control and reduce the burden of regulation. A “one-in, one-out” approach, designed to change the culture of government, would make sure that new regulatory burdens on business are only brought in when reductions can be made to existing regulation.
Pretty good stuff you must agree. At PMQs in February, iDave was moved to say,
One of the problems is the huge amount of regulations-particularly coming out of Europe-that we need to put a stop to before they are introduced. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing an excellent job with his one in, one out scheme, so that another regulation cannot be introduced until one has been scrapped, but I think we probably have to go further and faster and be more ambitious in scrapping the regulation that is holding back job creation in our country.
Then Priti Patel has to go and stamp her size fives over all this by this little exchange,
Priti Patel (Witham, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether his Department's one-in, one-out policy applies to EU regulations.
Fair Question one might have thought, what with the Government being so proud of this policy. The answer? Ah that is a little difficult,

Mark Prisk (Minister of State (Business and Enterprise), Business, Innovation and Skills; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
At present EU measures will not be counted as INs unless a Department exceptionally imposes a measure that goes beyond the minimum requirements (i.e. if it is gold-plated, in which case the gold-plated element will be cost as an IN). Existing EU legislation can be counted as an OUT if it is repealed or revoked, or if gold-plating is removed or if a derogation that imposed costs to business is voluntarily curtailed ahead of its maximum term expiring.
So that is a No then.

Poor Priti, there she is asking the right questions, and even getting interesting answers, but what can she do with them? If she goes public the whips will crush her kittens.

Of course what she has highlighted is that the whole One in One out exercise is pointless given the thousands of new EU regulations that arrive every year. Prisk has admitted there is nothing he can do to stop them. And nothing he or his government will do to mitigate them.

How freedoms are lost: Case study: the Alcolock

This invitation comes winging my way, and it sounds all so worthy,

Safe & Sober Transport in Europe

March 29-31

Opening Reception, March 29 at 18:00
It comes from the Swedish socialist Anna 'piss' Hedh. She is one of those politicians that has broad public experience that qualifies her to do the job,
Two-year social studies programme at Hvitfeldska upper secondary school (1983-1985). Nursing course, health care administration in Gothenburg (1986). Four semesters' university studies, youth recreation leader (1987-1989). Coordinator, association of local authorities, social services (1998). Care assistant (since 1986). Children's nurse (1987). Catering assistant (1987-1989). Youth hostel receptionist (1988). Receptionist at driving school (1989-1991). Youth recreation leader (1989-1991). Manager of youth recreation centre (1992-1997); recreational assistant (1997-1999); treatment assistant (1993-1995). Policy advisor, Kalmar (1999-2002).
Now anything coming from the Swedes needs to be looked at closely, they have an instinct, dare I say 'Methodical' approach to curtailing civil liberties.

So what is it all about. It is about the compulsory fiitting of breathalisers to the private car, breathalisers which are attached to the ignition, thus ensuring that there cannot be drink drivers, and no doubt saving millions of children and kittens from horrible, unecessary deaths. Volvo trucks (who are speaking at the event), fit them to a fair proportion of their trucks and that is fine. If operators of truck fleets or even buses wish to introduce them, no problem. But is the move to make them compulsory that grates.

It is being driven by the MHF -Swedish Abstaining Motorists’ Association (one wonders if they abstain from anything else?). Their stated aim is,
We are the organisation in Sweden that takes a broad view of alcolocks. MHF is pushing for these devices to be installed in all vehicles, quite simply because it saves lives.
The other people behind this project are the European Saftey Treansport Council, the ETSC. Actually they are running the show, as the fact that if you want to go to their cocktail party (sorry safety exhibition) you have to write to them,
To register, please send an

ETSC's work is financed by its members, through projects co-funded by the European Commission, and private sector sponsorship.
Back in 2000 the EU started looking into these alcohol driving disablers, and they have been used to recidivist drink drivers with some sucess in Australia and Canada. In these limitedcases than I can see their use. But that is not what is going n here. What we can see is a concerted effport to make them compulsory in every vehichle in Europe.

Not obnly would the cost be prohibitive (apptroximate £1000 per annum per car) the control aspects would be scary.

Looking at the study to make the Alcolock effective would mean a whole series of checking and control systems that would be utterly disproportionate. Anti tampering would need breath recognition systems, data retention, and repeated multiple tests during the drive,
"Many alcohol interlock devices require repeated breath tests - ‘running re-tests’ - at a  random interval after the vehicle has been successfully started. The purpose of these ‘running re-tests’ is actually threefold: (1) to prevent the possibility of a bystander providing an alcohol-free breath sample that would allow a driver with a high BAC to operate the vehicle; (2) to detect drivers whose BAC is still in the ascending phase and has risen beyond the set point after the vehicle was originally started; and (3) to prevent drivers from leaving the vehicle idling while they drink
They do recognise certain problems with fitting the device on the vehichles of recidivist drink drivers,
Over half of the interlock group had at least two cars available. When there was another vehicle in the family, there was a tendency for fewer trips in the interlock vehicle
No shit. Thus the solution is to make them compulsory.

There are some interesting drivers of drink driving according to the study. The most common is recognising that you have a drink problem.

Next is,
• being single;
Then,
• having children.
Oh, and I do hope that everybody at the event remembers not to drive home after the cocktails.
email to Ilyas.Daoud@etsc.eu by March 18.
The ETSC is, you will not be surprised to note, funded by industry (Volvo, Toyota etc) and the EU,

Saturday, March 19, 2011

A thing of beauty is a joy to behold

Spotted this on a Trend an Azeri newswire (as you do)

EU allocates 3 million euros for return Georgian citizens illegally residing in EU countries
As an EU project it is almost perfect.
The EU has allocated 3 million euros for the project that will cover three main areas: first, strengthening the capacity of the legal framework on migration, which includes the establishment of employment and consulting centers, development of textbooks and sharing experiences; second - assistance to migrants, which provides for their professional skills, consulting in the field of employment, assistance at the beginning of a small business, medical care and temporary shelter assistance.

The third direction stipulates the organization of information campaigns on legal migration opportunities and risks of irregular migration
So follow this. Georgia allows its people to move to the EU illegally. As a reward the EU gives them money, to take them back and train them to come to Europe legally.

It is a piece of staggering genius.

Friday, March 18, 2011

I am now safe from harm

This,


Is a photograph taken inside the gents loo at Europa House, 32 Smith Square, the Viceroy's Palace.

In order to protect us Eurocrats, at some expense, they have fitted a locked cage around the tiny radiator. After all we might be scalded by its great heat (though of course the heat is set by a centrally controlled thermostat, precluding accidental temerature increases.

I have to say it is the most preposterous bit of "Well you never know guvnor, you could hurt yourself" piece of wasted public resources I have ever seen.

And I have been working in the Euro bibble for years and trust me I have seen a fair bit.

Bryant's desperate attempt to show humour

Oh what a card Chris Bryant is,

"This Bill is a melancholic throat-clearing exercise inspired by a choleric attitude towards Europe.

"I am sanguine that the Government will be phlegmatic, so for all the reasons I have adumbrated in every other debate on the European Union ever since I was first elected in 2001, I oppose."
Do you think he won a bet?

Oh the possibilities are endless

The EPP Group is running a competition for an anniversary logo for its 35th year.

Think of the prizes, think of the honour

Prize -the designer of the winning entry will have an option to choose between:

-an invitation to participate as special guest at the EPP Congress in Marseille (December 2011),
-a 3-months paid internship at the EPP HQ in Brussels
Think of the copyright
All works sent in for application are automatically donated to the EPP
Go on chaps do you worst.

Leaving the ECHR? Cameron's Commiission suggests deadlock.

Lobbydog seems to have got there first with the final list of the Commission set to examine the need for a British Bill of Rights, and thus the possibility of the UK opting out of the jurusdiction of the ECHR.

Full membership: Sir Leigh Lewis KCB, Jonathan Fisher QC, Martin Howe QC, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Philippe Sands QC, Anthony Speaight QC, Professor Sir David Edward QC and Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky.
Looking at the people on it I wouold say that the result is pre-determined: a Chairman's casting vote.

Sir Leigh Lewis KCB,
Sir Leigh is a career Civil Servant who is a late addition as Chairman. But his opinion will in the end be vital.

Yes to independence/British Bill of Rights

Jonathan Fisher QC,
Fisher is a Conservative lawyer - Pro a British Bill of rights is this pamphlet is anything to go by. And for that matter this evidence to the House seems encouraging.
Martin Howe QC,
Howe is and remains pretty solid on the subject
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky.
Pinto-Duschinsky wrote the Policy Exchange paper demanding a British Bill of Rights, so I would put him in the Yes camp...
Anthony Speaight QC,
Is underdecided if the Society of Conservative Lawyers paper his anything to go by, as he seems to argue that we can (at least in England) avoid the ECHR judgements.

No to Independence/British Bill of Rights
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC,
Helena Kennedy is pretty hard core in favour of the ECHR
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC,
Strongly Pro ECHR former advisor to Roy Jenkins, Runnymead Trust etc
Philippe Sands QC,
Sands is a member of Matrix Chambers true winners of the HRA and a true believer in the efficacy of International Courts and Law.
Professor Sir David Edward QC
Sir David is a paid up member of the European elite

So as Lobbydog puts it,
Lewis, a former Permanent Secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions with a 'long career in public service', is perfectly positioned to see that this issue remains unresolved well in to 2012.

Looking now at the official anouncement on the MoJ website my heart sinks,
The Commission's full Terms of Reference are:

The Commission will investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extend our liberties.

It will examine the operation and implementation of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

It should provide advice to the Government on the ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead of and following the UK's Chairmanship of the Council of Europe.

It should consult, including with the public, judiciary and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012.
There isn't even the slightest thought that we might leave, not a possibility that we might mitigate the actions of the ECHR, merely that we find a way to tread water or to strengthen the ECHR rights. Please note that it is to build on "All our obligations".

Oh brother.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

"No sustainable economic performance is possible without social cohesion"

You know they pay people huge sums to write things like that (though some readers of this blog might point out that at least they can spell).

In this instance the idiot who utters these words is the French EU Commmissioner Michael Barnier, scourge of the City and all round danger to economic growth.

"We need to put the financial markets back in serving the real economy and put the real economy back in serving growth and human development,"
Any cursory reading of Adam Smith, damn it. Ok he is a Frenchman. Any cursory understanding of the priorities of man will make him realise the fatuity of his comments. Buisness is run by people, individuals who are driven by the needs of individuals. They canot be harnessed to arbritary political wishes, in this case 'growth and human development' without too great a loss of freedom.

Indeed when they work at all they work in such a way (you know Michel, the 'invisible hand' basic stuff, do jkeep up) that indeed engenders growth and development. How the heck does he think we moved from the caves to where we are now with wide screen TV's the MCC and all manner of civilising influences? It wasn't because of some centrally imposed decision by the gnomes of Brussels.

What annoys me about this sort of Eu-jargonese drivel isn't that it isn'tr true, though it isn't. It is just that it is transparently and demonstrably stupid.

Though as an aside I do love the organisation of one of the participants in their games today,
 "Ms Benedicte Federspiel (Various Interests Group, Denmark)"

Belay that sanguinity on Galileo

Only a day ago I was being jocular about the prospects of Galileo. But the Scaramouch Fandago has moved to the No, No, No, No, section of the song. Take a look at this opinion from the Budgets Committee of the European Parliament from earlier this week,

4. Stresses that Galileo is the first EU-owned project and that to avoid uncertainties, reassure market players and bring it to full operability within the shortest possible period its budget must be steadily increased; supports, therefore, the proposal that in the future, where large-scale projects such as this are concerned, a predetermined annual amount should be covered from the EU budget and that the Member States should be responsible for financing any balance;


5. Points out that the estimated figure (€1.9 billion) included in the mid-term review for the period after 2013 is purely indicative and might represent a low estimate of the actual amount needed to complete the project.
And pay attention to comments such as 'budget must be steadily increased' and 'Member States should be responsible for financing any balance" and my personal favourite, 'might represent a low estimate of the actual amount needed to complete the project'.

What they are saying here is that in order to finance this and other massive vanity projects the National Governments of the EU must be prepared to sign undated blank cheques.

Can somebody please stop these lunatics?

A Tory Scream of impotence

Nick de Bois the Tory Member for Enfield is having a fits of the vapours over on Conservative Home.

We must show the British people that we are not resigned to accepting ludicrous decisions imposed by European institutions
He says, Quite so Mr de Bois, Quite so.

So what do you propose to do about it...?

Drum roll...

Silence. Crisp packets blow through the canyons of his mind. Nothing. Zip Nada.
One of the things that felt the most wrong about the thirteen years of Labour government was the feeling of helplessness: the sense that things were marching inexorably onwards and there was nothing that you could do about it.

He says, he lists all those dreadful things, and finishes like this,
And that’s what this is all about. It’s not about an oppressive European superstate, or even about unelected judges. It’s about showing the British people that when it really matters we can change things, we are not resigned to our fate, supine and helpless but that we can take charge and put a stop to things that are just plain wrong.

Yes yes yes, Nick absolutely, and what are your proposals to do this? What is your government going to do?
Oh right I know. What happened last night? What arguement did your Government marshalled against the Labour proposal to drop the VAT rise on fuel ...


Oh yes the EU wouldn't allow it.

Today the Times reports that Cameron has asked for a second opinion on the Temporary Workers Directive because the Attorney General has told him that there is nothing that can be done.

We are 'not resigned' you say. So what shall we do?

How? No idea? Of course you do, you know how, but you cannot countenance it. Give the people that in/out referendum, let them decide if they want all those things you write about.

Otherwise what is the point of these vapourings? What is the point of you?

Promoting EU Integration

That is the headline for a single article in this week's European Voice, but really, on reading it, it should be the strapline for the whole newspaper.

As director of Belgium's European Movement office, it is Abram's task to lead her team of four in educating Belgian citizens about how the EU works. No easy task these days, in the face of increased apathy about European integration, but one that the 39-year-old relishes, even after ten years. “It is my dream job,” says Abram with a grin.

The European Voice or European Vice as I used to call it describes itself like this,
the only weekly newspaper with an independent view of the EU.
And furthermore it claims that it is
a high-quality read and staunchly independent in its reporting and opinions. It is not - and never will be - tied in any way to a member state, party or point of view.

Utter balderdash, There was a moment, a few years back when it tried to become a tad more critical, (see the illustrated edition of 2002) but after a few editions I understand that big advertisers were advised by people within the Commission that its free distribution network in the European Commission could be curtailed.

Suitably chastened it has kept it strongly independent pro-European Union views ever since.





Hiding stuff from UKIP

This is a very revealing snippet reported by Liegh Phillips in the EU Observer yesterday,

One UK diplomat in a rare, private moment of frankness, referring to the obsession of British eurosceptics regarding supposed EU regulations outlawing bendy bananas and smoky-bacon flavoured crisps, recently joked with an advisor to the German finance ministry: "If the likes of Ukip and the Daily Express only knew what is on the table!"

Funny this you know.

When was the last time UKIP obssed about this sort of thing? Not on my watch. We are worried about all sorts of things, but what this rare moment of frankness actually shows is quite how out of touch this unamed British diplomat is with the political reality on the ground in the UK. If he is doing his job, as Ambrose Bierce put it of engaing in 'the patriotic art of lying for one's country', then he really ought to go back to the UK, sit in a pub and talk to some people in order to lie more effectively.

What do they talk about there (in one of the sadly diminishing numbers of hostelries)?

They talk about the impact of Eastern European immigration on the unskilled job market - though they might say it along the lines of,
"I can't even get a job shelf stacking at Tesco because some bloody Pole got it".
They talk about the idea that Foreign judges can decide if prisoners can get the vote. They talk about how EU types have decided that their car insurance will rise, if they are women, or their pension will drop, if they are a man. They talk about the collapse in the standard of education, they talk about shitty, costly EU imposed light bulbs. Other things they talk about, the cost of green taxes, the inability of the Government to set its own fuel tax rate withjout permission from Brussels.

They talk about all sorts of things, but they do not talk about bendy bananas and crisp flavours except with heavy irony.

What is telling is that this British diplomat thinks it is funny to be witholding from the 'likes of Ukip and the Daily Express' - read the people of Britain, the very real and damaging aspects of the current EU response to the Economic crisis, particularly sharing the joke with our competitors.
 
It also shows how ignorant and behind the curve our Government's advisors are when it comes with negotiating with our continental friends.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

You and whose army?

"The EU is ready to consider all necessary options in order to remove Gaddafi,"
Or so Mr Van Rompuy told us today.
According to the Parliament magazine,
World leaders have ruled out the use of military action against Gaddafi but, in a ferocious attack on the Libyan leader, Van Rompuy refused to rule out the use of force
With what pray, the Belgian bandsmen, or somebody else's troops?

What Would a Progressive Europe Do?

Very good question, and given that this event is asking the question I was interested.
So interested I visited the website advertised http://www.leftcaucus.eu/

Well given that it doesn't exist I suspect we know the answer to their rhetorical question.


VAT on Fuel vote: More evidence that we have no power

The result of the vote and more to the point the arguements about the idea of dropping the VAT rise on fuel are a classic illustration of what is wrong with this country, and why we must have a vote on our future relations with the EU.

I rarely do this, but I am going to put up the statement by Nigal Farage on the subject because I think he makes the point well,

"The Tories didn't dare do it, the Lib Dems don't care about it and frankly the Labour Party isn't there on the subject at all" said Nigel Farage this afternoon, after the Labour proposal to scrap the VAT increase on Fuel was defeated in the House of Commons due to EU rules that ban more than three rates of VAT duty.


"To do what Balls wanted would break EU law", he went on, "But all that the Government have managed to do by pointing this out is to show their utter weakness in the face of Brussels dictat".

"When will they get it into their thick heads that they, and the Labour Government before them have given away the independence of this country?" He said.

"Think about it for a moment. The Conservative led Government defeats an Labour motion to reduce tax, by boasting that it doesn't have the power to set UK tax rates.



Extraordinary, and disgraceful. And Mr Cameron refuses to offer a referendum because he thinks that we are better off in the EU?"


"Will somebody please tell me what the point is of Mr Cameron? What is the point of his Government? We would be better and more honest closing down Westminster and opening it up to tourists - carefully remembering not to give discounts to UK citizens - because that would breach EU equality legislation", said Farage.

Wishing it won't make it happen

"Galileo, Galileo, Figaro, magnifico" you know how the song goes.

But it seems that years beghind schedule and billons over budget the magnifico euro project that is Galileo is lumbering into view,

''This is one of the EU's largest commercial ventures, so it has to work – otherwise the European Commission's credibility on project management could be called into question,''
says one Danuial Fiott of the Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation. And the whole sentence just falls apart.

It should have been commercial, but of course it isn't, after all as the article makes clear,
In 2007, the project appeared to hit a brick wall when the public-private partnership set up to fund the construction of the satellites collapsed. After tense negotiations, member states agreed to finance Galileo entirely from the public purse and the commission even moved unused funds from its agriculture budget to cover the shortfall.
Better still even the vast sums of money already poured down its gills has not been enough,
To rub salt into the project's wounds, the commission has announced that an extra €1.9bn will be needed to see it through to completion. The total cost to European taxpayers, originally estimated at €3bn, now hovers around the €5.4bn mark – plus running costs of €800m a year.
But never you fear, cost, delay and downright pointlessness have never been a problem when the amour propre of the EU is concerned,
Fiona Hall MEP is a member of the industry, research and energy committee in the European Parliament. She admits she has been frustrated by Galileo's slow progress: ''The problems go back to the public-private partnership and I hope that lessons are learned from that. We are where we are though, and we do have to draw a line – either we ditch it all together or we make it work, even if it needs more money. There's a lot of business to be gained from Galileo so we shouldn't just regard it as money going out. But it has to be managed a thousand times better than before.''
I note that the lesson she draws is that trying to ensure it is commercially viable at the start is the problem, and when the private sector looked at the underlying fundamentals it ran a mile. So we continue chucking cash at it in the hope that it will be able to compete with the US, the Chinese, the Russians and even the Indians. But at what point do we stop pouring good money after bad? 6 billion? 8 billion? 10 billion?

You know what Mr Fiott, I think that the EU's project management capability has been under question for many, many years.

European Parliament caught with pants on fire

A couple of weeks ago the Sunday Express ran an article on the House of European History. In it they quoted the UKIP MEP Marta Andreasen

“Before the House of European History even starts operating European taxpayers will have to foot a bill of £51million just for its refurbishment.
I find no justification for such expense even if funded out of savings. History can be found in books and many museums around Europe cover the history of Europe.

“Such an expenditure in times of crisis will be judged as insulting by the citizens of Europe.”

She was the only MEP to vote last week against paying £2,1million to the architects creating a vision for the museum.

Parliamentary documents estimate the costs of buying the Eastman building, where the museum will be based, at £16million.

Renovating the art deco building and buying a collection for the permanent and first temporary exhibitions will cost another £47million.

That brings the total set-up costs for the museum, due to open in 2014, to more than £65million.

Estimated annual running costs are almost £7.7million, including £1million for 18 full time staff, £1.7million on swapping the temporary exhibition and £1.2million on running an internet site and staging events.
The European Parliament got very upset by thjis story, and went to AFP to put their side of the story, it wouldn't cost that much in running costs they said,
Les premières estimations du coût dépassent 70 millions d'euros avec et le coût d'exploitation annuel est estimé à 10 millions d'euros", a-t-elle soutenu.


Les chiffres avancés par Mme Andreasen sont "excessifs", ont expliqué à l'AFP les responsables de l'administration du Parlement.

Le coût total tourne autour de 53 millions d'euros, dont 31 pour la rénovation du bâtiment qui doit abriter ce lieu à Bruxelles. Quant à l'exploitation annuelle, elle devrait coûter entre 6 et 7 millions d'euros, ont-ils indiqué.
Or in other words Marta got her sums wrong, it wouldn't cost 10 million euros a year at all, far less, 6 or 7 tops.

You know what, they were right, Marta did get her estimates wrong, the House of History will not cost 10 million a year to run. No, according to figures just handed over to the Budgetary Control Committee, the annual running costs will be 13,45 million Euros.

The document is titled,
HOUSE OF EUROPEAN HISTORY

WORKING DOCUMENT BY PROJECT TEAM

ADDITIONAL BUDGET INFORMATION

FOLLOWING MEETING COMMITTEE ON BUDGETS - 3 MARCH 2011
 
Bad Marta.
And here is the table showing annual running costs.

Now is anybody going to punish the EP functionary for lying to the press?


All must have prizes (redux)

It is that time again, J Clive will be polishing his statuete, but who will be this year's winner. Of what, you clamour?
The European Sycophancy Prize of course, launched a couple of months ago now is the time to get your nominations in.

The European Parliament will this year award its prize for journalism for the fourth time. Applications will be accepted until 31 March inclusive and the prize will be awarded in October 2011.


Prizes will go to journalists who have covered major European issues or promoted a better understanding of the EU institutions and/or EU policies. There will be an award for each of four different categories: written press, radio, TV and internet. The winner in each category will receive €5000.
Go on then, polish your praises and earn €5000

Gadaffi 'could' fund the 'In' campaign in an EU referendum

Following my post of yesterday I read this on Euroalert which highlights another aspect of the report,

Currently EU funding can cover 85% of the expenditure of a party, which must therefore find the remaining 15% itself. MEPs believe the 15% could be reduced to 10%. They also suggest raising the ceiling for donations from 12,000 euro to 25,000 euro per year per donor and bringing forward the point in time when the annual grant to the parties is paid.
In order to be able to spend Euro 1,000,000 on fighting an EU referendum in Britain, all a European Political Party will have to do is raise, Euro 100,000, the rest will be able to be given by the taxpayer. And with the donation limit raised to Euro 25,000 that means all they have to do to spend 1 million is to find 4 donors.

This thought set me off. Who is allowed to fund European Political Parties voluntarily? (Obviously the taxpayer doesn't have a choice). Well after talking to the Sectretariat of the the relevant Constitutional Affairs Committee it seems there are no real rules. Here is the regulation governing permissable donations as it currently stands.
2. A political party at European level as well as a political foundation at European level shall not accept:

(a) anonymous donations;
(b) donations from the budgets of political groups in the European Parliament;
(c) donations from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it;
(d) donations exceeding EUR 12000 per year and per donor from any natural or legal person other than the undertakings referred to in point (c) and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4;
(e) donations from any public authority from a third country, including from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it.
So I am Muamar Gadaffi, and I think that the EU is so divided that it is better that the UK stays in rather being independent where it might start to make desions for itself. Thus when the inevitable In/Out referendum comes in the UK, I want to help the In side. I look at the funding rules for European Political Parties and come to the conclusion that this is my way to influence the outcome.
A) No anonymous donations.
OK, no problem, I can either give the money directly from my own named and numbered Swiss bank Account, or I can channel it through a third party, because there is no way theat the EU will be able to check what is going on in Libya.
(B) No donations from the budgets of political groups in the European Parliament;
Not a problem for me. After all their budgets already come from the taxpayer.
(C) No donations from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it;
Again, no problem from me, as long it is direct from me, or my associate rather than from  Libyan government agency this is no obstacle.
(d) No donations exceeding EUR 12000 per year and per donor from any natural or legal person other than the undertakings referred to in point (c) and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4;
Well they are changing this to EUR 25,000, and despite what my detractors might have you believe I am both a natutral and legal person, so of course would my associates be. (Paras 3 and 4 are about national political parties and national and European Political Foundations so of no relevance)
(e) No donations from any public authority from a third country, including from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it.
Again, as long as I did it myself, or through an associate, rather than through one of the agencies of the state this is no problem. And if I, Muamar Gadaffi can do it, so can anyone.
I spoke to the Electoral Commission and they pointed me to this document on their website that defines what

Who can you accept a donation from?

You must only accept donations from permissible donors.

A permissible donor is:
• An individual registered on a UK electoral register, including overseas electors and those leaving bequests.
• Most UK-registered companies.
• A UK-registered trade union.
• A UK-registered building society.
• A UK-registered limited liability partnership (LLP) that carries on business in the UK.
• A UK-registered friendly society.
• A UK-based unincorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK.
Which certainly suggests that the EU's proposed rule changes would be in breach of UK electoral law.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Loading the dice with your cash

http://www.flickr.com/photos/magical_greece/395952913/
They are changing the rules on political funding in Brussels to ensure that your money can be spent on running campaigns in any future EU referendum,

Today a report was passed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Parliament which now moves up to the plenary. The report, called the the Giannakou Report after its draftswoman Marietta Giannakou (illustrated to the right in a former incarnation as the Religious Affairs Minister of Greece) who was on the Convention which drew up the European Constitution, is titled,
A Draft Report on the application of Regulation 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding
In it we see this,
30. Points out that since 2008 European political parties have been entitled to use sums received as grants for ‘financing campaigns conducted ... in the context of the elections to the European Parliament ...’ (Article 8, third paragraph, of the Funding Regulation); further points out, however, that they are prohibited from using these sums for financing ‘referenda campaigns’; considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States; believes, however that, if European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union;
Thus they would be able to shovel taxpayers money to the pro-EU side, indeed that would be the express purpose of the change in the law.
 
What is more this recital was amended as it went through the Committee. Amendment 95 by one Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP for the Eastern Counties and federast supreme. What did the Duffer succeed in doing, well he removed this sentence,
considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States
In other words he whitewashed any suggestion that the EU at one time recognised that there are some aspect of national democracy where it shouldn't interfere.

This is a direct attempt to find extra taxpayer funding for the Yes side in any forthcoming EU referendum in the UK. They are as aware of the liklihood of an In/Out referendum in the UK sooner or later and have every intention of loading the dice with taxpayer's money. As things stand the UK is affected in the sense that of the parties elected to the European Parliament and that have Political Parties at a European Level, that is the Tories, the Greens, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems are all formally partisans of an 'In'.

Think about all this. What this means is that money donated to the Lib Dem Euro political party, by someone living in France, could be used to fund a pro-European referendum campaign in the UK by washing it through the European Poltical Party. Neat eh?
 
In direct contravension of British electoral law, but so be it.

It's EP Brain week!

Yes it is,


Are you aware of the existance of your brain. Yes, then the European Parliament is the place for you. For this week is Brian awareness week, in which we are told that,
"Education: A lifelong challenge for the brain"
Well, tell us something we didn't know. Actually in this case if I was over in Brussels I would have turned up for this one as the keynote speaker is Professor Colin Blakemore who is no intellectual slouch, but the title is just daft.

 

Blogger news

Blogroll

About