The 24th official language of the EU: Eurocratese

According to their website the EU, that beacon of multilingualism has 23 official languages,

They are: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish and Swedish.

But now we have to add a 24th. To work and operate in the institutions it has long been known that you need English to succeed, and French to brown nose. But the key language skill above all others is to be fluent in that amalgam of English and gibberish, Eurocratese. Thanks to Quarsan I can bring you this text book example.

Without a close study of the following texts you can forget passing the Concours. First an intro flowchart.

16:00-18:00 1st Break-out session: Visions

This session will take the form of a brainstorming structured into six groups corresponding to the six thematic dimensions of the Digital Futures "hexagon" (political, social, economic, personal, environmental and technological). It will perform a stocktaking of existing "visions" (including those stemming from the DG INFSO internal trial or brought by the participants) and cross-fertilise opinions, inspiring ideas for further visions.

Got that? There will be questions...

9:00-11:00 2nd Break-out session: Trends

The trends identified at the plenary session will have been clustered and the clusters will be partitioned amongst the break-out sessions. Participants will revise the trends, possibly adding new ones. Each trend should then be scored with regards to certainty and impact and receive a fading-out date (if any).

Of course comprehension is vital (if any).

There is, of course method,

Methodology

The long term time horizon of Digital Futures makes it suitable for normative methods (i.e. that start with a preliminary set of futures that are of particular interest and work backwards to see if and how these futures might or might not grow out of the present) complemented by explorative methods (i.e. that begin with the present). The approach is conceptually divided into three knowledge elicitation steps:

1) Draw scenarios on a time horizon 2040-50 using participative scenario planning/thinking techniques. Each scenario is associated with a likelihood, desirability and impact.

2) Identify possible issues stemming from the scenarios, including risks and opportunities.

3) Proceed backward to devise policy orientations and options for action to address the above issues.

To facilitate the planning of scenarios the project identifies trends and the associated drivers and inhibitors with a long term time perspective.

Each of the steps is underpinned by a number of techniques such as creative brainstorming, gaming, relevance trees, Delphi and formal modelling.

And like all the best things, there is another flow chart (if any)

This is for planning for the future, 30 to 40 years in the future.

 Please remember, we are paying for this.

I have nominated this for the Golden Bull award

I’ll scweem and scweem until I’m sick

I am beginning to think that Labour’s answer to Bonnie Langford, the veritable Moneyball rather fancies our Nige.
She seems fixated by him. Yet again she has written a blogpost attacking the amount of coverage he gets, all the while whingeing about the paucity of column inches she receives herself.
Previously she has waffled on about how dreadful Roger Helmer is, whilst complaining about Farage’s media coverage. And just about how awful he is. Now she has moved up a gear, questioning his intelligence and depth.

Farage does not carry on the British parliamentary tradition of robust debate coupled with intellectual depth. Farage, in fact, has no depth.

Of course Ms Honeyball would like him to play the part of supplicant, well mannered, ineffectual. But why would or should anybody do that.
It is frankly a disgrace that nonentities like her good self witter on, whilst standing idly by as democracies are overturned in pursuit of an anti-people pro elite agenda. I find it outrageous that somebody who stands for Labour is complicit in the social and financial destruction of millions of the poorest in Europe. Across the continent we can see that the left of centre parties are slowly wakening to the reality that the EU is not their to help them, but to sacrifice them on the altar of the political/business elite.
It cares not for the masses, but merely the fashionable mores of a dwindling class of faux intellectuals without a calloused hand between them.
Farage she says, is nasty. He doesn’t respect their dignity,

Farage has no compunction about tearing into EU and European Parliament figures with no respect for either their or, indeed, Farage’s own, dignity.

Is that it, does his robust approach to the preening supremacists of Europe rankle. Well so it should. Because you Ms Honeyball represent that aloof, morally isolated crew to perfection. When he attacks Van Rompuy, or Schulz it is, you are right by extension an attack on you and yours. It must be tough knowing that his voice is listened to with appreciation at home whilst yours? Yours isn't heard at all.

But still, but still: this fascination she has… is there a bat squeak somewhere beneath the outrage?

John Hemming: Utter prat

The Lib/Dem MP John Hemming has just proven that he is an utter prat. He has put down an EDM (average cost in the 2005-6 period of £290) which should have been restricted to his blog (free to use, maybe his Facebook page or twitter feed. But not wasting public money.


Is this the most pointless quip/witticism in recent years?

That this House notes the reports in the BBC and other media outlets of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down like a tonne of bricks on wealthy people who sell properties through offshore companies to avoid stamp duty; recognises that this is part of a trend of metrication of traditional British phrases; believes that, given that a ton is greater in weight than a tonne, this understates the Chancellor's commitment to action; accepts that there is merit in using some metric units for measurement, but regrets the unnecessary metrication of traditional British phrases; and calls on the BBC and other media to cease the metrication of traditional phrases forthwith before people end up being exhorted not to give another 24.5 millimetres rather than not giving another inch.

Our impotence: Our pleasure

A little Q&A in the Lords on Friday illustrate this country's impotence in the Face of the EU. It also shows,
1) How far down the political food chain we have thrown away our ability to make decisions for ourselves
2) How Ministers and Government spokesman, rather than railing against their own inability to make or effect law, happily applaud their captors. It is political Stockholm syndrome writ small.

Lord Pearson asked,

To ask Her Majesty's Government why there is no requirement to label halal meat in shops and restaurants; and what steps they propose to take to inform consumer choice in this area.

Lord Taylor, The Tory whip responded,

The Government believe that people should know what they are buying in shops or when they are eating out. An amendment to require food labels to indicate whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter was proposed last year by the European Parliament in the context of proposals for an EU food information for consumers regulation. This proposal was not taken up, but in subsequent discussions a compromise agreement was reached that highlighted the importance of this issue and proposed that it should be considered by the EU Commission in a welfare context as part of the anticipated discussion on the EU welfare strategy.

The Government support this approach, as it will allow consumer information to be considered alongside measures to minimise the suffering of animals slaughtered without stunning. The Commission has recently published its proposed Welfare Strategy for 2012-15 and has confirmed it will be studying the issue of labelling as provided for in last year's agreement on the food information for consumers regulation. The Government welcome this approach and we look forward to receiving further proposals from the Commission. In the mean time we are considering how we can use domestic legislation.

Note that Taylor is suggesting that the Government would like to add Halal labels to products sold in this country, but, awwww, the European Parliament blocked them. Better still the Government is really chuffed that the European Commission has announced that it will be looking into the issue of labelling at sometime over the next three years. Wow, isn't that a pip!

A little bit of research into This Animal Welfare package brings up interesting results.

Footnote 16 in the study produces this,

See Feasibility study: 'Animal welfare labelling and establishing a Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare', 26.012009 by FCEC.

This study is complete, done, over and not in the future (so the Commission have studied, rather than will study) but it has an Annex (Page 141 out of 143) in which it deals with the thorny problem. This Annex starts,

European legislation foresees that the obligation of stunning before slaughter does not apply to slaughter methods demanded by religious rites. Kosher and halal slaughter practices are therefore exempted from the obligation to stun.

It concludes,

Impacts of policy options on the present situation of religious slaughter depend on the content of animal welfare standards applied. A Community Animal Welfare Label or guidelines for the establishment of animal welfare and quality schemes would likely be based upon specific animal welfare indicators. If the requirement of stunning before slaughter was part of these indicators, religious slaughter practices not allowing to stun animals could be excluded from participation in animal welfare schemes. Under the option of mandatory labelling of welfare indicators, producers could be requested to indicate products as derived ‘from unstunned animals’, possibly leading to negative implications for actors of religious food chains as described above. Therefore, it is unlikely that this option would find the support of all religious minority groups concerned.

Thus I think we can safely assume that the situation ante is what is being offered here as to do anything else would be to risk attack from religious groups that matter to European politicians, that is Jewry and Islam, rather than those that don't such as Christianity.

Footnote 20 of the Strategy states the following

Recital 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers (OJ L 304, 22.112011, p. 18) states that: Union consumers show an increasing interest in the implementation of the Union animal welfare rules at the time of slaughter, including whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. In this respect, a study on the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals should be considered in the context of a future Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals".

Again, this call took place before the Study was completed. Thus it is redundant. So that rather neatly deals with Lord Taylor's substantive points. But his final comment bears thinking about,

In the mean time we are considering how we can use domestic legislation.

It would be instructive to know if the Government is serious about this, whether it has the right to introduce food labelling legislation (given that legislation in this area is an EU Competence).

If you are Eurosceptic, Climate Sceptic and centre right? Then join UKIP says Tory Chairman

BBC Derby interviewed the Tory Chairman, Baroness Warsi this morning and asked her about the Roger Helmer defection to UKIP.


It became very clear that she was less than displeased with his joining UKIP,

"In light of the views that he has had over the last few years, I feel that it is no surprise that he has gone, and it may well be that his views are more in tune with the Parety he has now chosen to join".

Which has the benefit of being honest, and gives a clear message. If you are a small state, liberally minded Eurosceptic, who is worried by the Climate Change agenda, by the growth of our aid budget and the reams of regulation strangling businesses both large and small.


Then it is OK by the Tory party if you come and join us, indeed, they think you really ought to.

The hairy one's knickers get even further twisted

Our favourite Labour MEP, Hairy Moneyball is at it again, fulminating on how awful it is that UKIP - but more especially Nigel Farage gets press coverage.


Apart from the obvious point that as UKIP is rising across the polls again, and that by and large the Main stream press hardly cover UKIP at all she is just not happy.

The British media must be challenged as to why they give UKIP leader Nigel Farage so much attention, air time and column inches when UKIP members hold such vile views. While I believe in free speech speech, I do not find it acceptable for the media to promote a party which is so obviously on the right-wing political fringe.

I wonder what this tin pot wannabe dictator means when she uses the words 'Free speech'


I go with JS Mill,

"...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."

These people should be barred from the pub - all pubs

Simon cook has spotted some outrageous hypocrisy about saving the pub.

He highlights 47 sidling skunks who have rushed to sign an EDM, on how to protect that fine institution, but who previously had contributed to the rapid decline and downfall of the pub, that is, by voting for the smoking ban.

Here they are.

Peter Bottomley (Con), James Clappison (Con), David Anderson (Lab), Adrian Bailey (Lab), Kevin Barron (Lab), Clive Betts (Lab), Tom Brake (LD), Annette Brooke (LD), Lorely Burt (LD), Menzies Campbell (LD), Martin Caton (Lab), Tom Clarke (Lab), Rosie Cooper (Lab), Jim Dobbin (Lab), Frank Doran (Lab), Jim Dowd (Lab), Louise Ellman (Lab), Paul Flynn (Lab), Don Foster (LD), Mike Gapes (Lab), Andrew George (LD), Mike Hancock (LD), Stephen Hepburn (Lab), David Heyes (Lab), Jimmy Hood (Lab), Martin Horwood (LD), George Howarth (Lab), Gerald Kaufman (Lab), John Leech (LD), Tony Lloyd (Lab), Steve McCabe (Lab), John McDonnell (Lab), Alan Meale (Lab), Austin Mitchell (Lab), John Pugh (LD), Linda Riordan (Lab), John Robertson (Lab), Dan Rogerson (LD), Bob Russell (LD), Dennis Skinner (Lab), Gerry Sutcliffe (Lab), Mark Tami (Lab), Joan Walley (Lab), Robert Walter (Con), Hywel Williams (PC), Mark Williams (LD), Mike Wood (Lab)

Lamp posts anyone?

Not sure farmers will be happy about this

Chris Davies, the North West Lib/Dem MEP and an old fashioned yogurt knitter has excelled himself with this report that was passed in the EP this week. Called,

Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050

you can imagine the litany of ill-conceived, ruinously expensive ideas that lie therein. The one section, of many, that really caught my eye was this,

Supports the idea that EU funds, including the Rural Development Fund, should only fund projects for agricultural facilities that are energy-efficient, and in particular those employing renewable energy sources that can reduce carbon emissions to a level as close as possible to zero;

I am sure that the farmers of this land will be delighted to discover that the Lib/Dems, and Labour voted in favour of this. The Tories, displaying their normal moral courage abstained.

Olli Rehn should have listened to Reagan

Olli Rehn, the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro was over in Portugal, desperately trying not to freak out the locals, and the markets. In a speech that is oddly titled as

Speech at the Parliament of the Republic of Lisbon

Which has the suggestion that the rest of the country has declared UDI.

Anyhow the speech was highlighted by the Commission in the following tweet,

It just reminds me of that magnificent and true comment by Ronald Reagan,

YouGov: Fearing the Tumbrils?

There is something almost ancien regieme about the YouGov-Cambridge event at the British Academy tomorrow. A whole bunch of media/political/business panjandrums are gathering to discuss a general "Whither Britain's relationship with the EU". Here is a list of them,

Speakers include: Rt Hon Frances Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office; Rt Hon Alistair Darling, Labour MP and former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer; John Humphrys, Presenter, BBC Radio 4 Today Programme; Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist; Sir Roger Carr, President, CBI; Jim O’Neill, Chairman, Goldman Sachs Asset Management and author of the BRIC term; Sir Win Bischoff, Chairman, Lloyds Banking Group plc; Lord Wood, Senior Advisor to Ed Miliband and Shadow Cabinet Minister Without Portfolio; Rt Hon John Redwood, Conservative MP and Chairman of the Economic Competitiveness Policy Group; Rt Hon Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP and Chairman, House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee; Lord Glasman, Labour peer; Declan Ganley, Chairman and CEO, Ganley Group of Companies; Alex Ellis, Director of Strategy, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Georges Ugeux, CEO of Galileo Global Advisors and former Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange; Louise Cooper, Senior Markets Analyst, BGC; Professor Andrew Gamble, Head of Politics and International Studies, Cambridge University; Dr Linda Yueh, Economics Editor, Bloomberg TV &; Fellow in Economics, Oxford University, and others…

It is based upon the research released a couple of days ago which came up with some figures that must worry them, but are so bleedingly obvious one wonders why anybody paid for it.

What did the study discover?

♦ Brits call for a major revision of the UK’s relationship with Europe

♦ Eurozone and Britain heading in 2 starkly different directions, with a majority of people in France, Germany and Italy wanting more integration – and even in some cases a fully federalised “United States of Europe”

♦ The dynamics of German public opinion threaten a break-up of the Eurozone, with significant opposition to a greater crisis-fighting role for Germany and the ECB

Jeepers, no not that.

♦ 60% of Brits want a national referendum to decide on Britain’s relationship with the EU (v. 19% who don’t).

♦ 60% want a looser relationship with the EU or to leave altogether, and to opt out EU-wide policies enforced from Brussels (v. 27% who want continued full membership or closer union).

♦ Only 14% want more integration with Europe and a further 13% want to keep things as they are with Britain as a full EU member.

And there is more

A majority of Brits want national control of almost all policy-areas:

♦ Including, among others, immigration (79%),agriculture (74%), trade links with other countries (60%), financial regulation (68%), rights for workers (66%), deciding laws on trade unions/strikes (80%) and crime and justice (85%).

Weirdly they pick on the Lib/Dems to illustrate how out of touch on this subject the political elite are (the ones who are speaking at the conference remember)

Nick Clegg is out of step with a significant majority of his own party:

♦ Half of Lib Dem voters want a looser relationship with the EU or outright withdrawal.

♦ National versus European control shares similar support for most major policy areas among Lib Dem voters (including immigration (70% of Lib Dems), trade links with other countries (51% of Lib Dems), rights for workers, (50% of Lib Dems), tax rates and national budgets (91% of Lib Dems), crime and justice (81% of Lib Dems), agriculture (77% of Lib Dems) and deciding laws on trade unions and strikes (74% of Lib Dems).

One figure they don't highlight in the summary is this,

In order to make the EU less integrated, a new treaty will be needed. Other countries might well use their veto to block such a change. Suppose SURVEY COUNTRY then had to decide whether to pull out of the EU altogether or to remain a member of the EU as it is, which option would you support?

The answers to this are instructive (p2). Essentially if pushed to make an in/out decision Britain currently says,

SURVEY COUNTRY should pull out of the EU 53%
SURVEY COUNTRY should remain a member of the EU 32%
Don’t know 15%

So what we have is a clear, absolute majority supporting the UKIP position, both on wishing to rejig to a pure free trade zone, but if necessary to leave forthwith.

And which party isn't invited to tomorrow's event, neither to provide a speaker, nor even to send a delegate. Yup you guessed it, UKIP.

How will these people ever understand the wishes of the people of this country, if they will not engage with those who speak for them on this issue? Nobody in the entire conference is a withdrawalist, there are a few Eurosceptics there, but nobody who, hand on heart will say publicly that the UK should leave.

Obviously to speak up for the majority is somehow below the salt. If they let us in, it would be as if they had invited a foul pestilent stench of reality into the room.

I note that Goldman Sachs is well represented, and this is being organised by Cathy Ashton's husband, the boss of YouGov Peter Kellner, with a media partner in DGFT.

They see the sans-cullottes walking past their windows, they know they are out there, but they just cannot force themselves to bring them into the room. Do they see intimations of the tumbril?

Ashton's frosty Imperial ambitons

Not content with muscling in on the UN, Baroness Ashton has seen a new target for the EU's aggrandisement. The Arctic Council.

According to reports the EU is looking to get permanent Observer status in this body that tries to solve intra-Arctic problems and issues. The EU has tried before to join a group of Observers which currently include France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom. It has previously been rebuffed.

What Cathy doesn't understand, like many men, is that No can mean No.

I suspect the sticking point is this requirement of Observers,

Recognize Arctic States' sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the Arctic.

Of course once the EU has formal status, how long before it decides it speaks on behalf of the other Observers, such as the UK, and then on behalf of the three EU countries that are full member's, Sweden, Finland and Denmark?

Not racist, not not not

Just cloth eared and pretty awful

The EU's vid where that European is beset by nasty looking foriegn types has been withdrawn.

Here is the apology

The clip was absolutely not intended to be racist and we obviously regret that it has been perceived in this way. We apologise to anyone who may have felt offended. Given these controversies, we have decided to stop the campaign immediately and to withdraw the video.

Stefano Sannino, Director General of DG Enlargement

Aerobics against substance abuse

In Southern Sudan,


Got to love this UNDP job offer (via @quarsan)

All personnel are struggling to cope with the chronic stress of working within a post-conflict environment in which few counseling, social support, and other support and recreational services are available. Of particular concern is the need to help staff deal with traumatic stress, chronic stress, communication and resolution of interpersonal conflicts, multi- and cross-cultural diversity, and alcohol and substance abuse education.

How to solve this appalling situation?

Therefore, we are seeking to recruit a fitness Instructor to assist in providing exercises as part of the wellbeing of staff in order to ensure work/life balance, which is another important referral service for staff members....
The Fitness Instructor will coach groups or individuals in exercise activities and the fundamentals of sports e.g. weight training, cardiovascular programs, aerobics;

So how much are we sending over to the UNDP?

Well according to last year's review

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has a leading role in reaching the MDGs, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected countries. It has a distinct comparative advantage in democratic governance and crisis-prevention and recovery. It has an important role managing the Resident Coordinator system and multi-donor trust funds on behalf of the wider UN development system.
UNDP has many strengths, but we also want to see urgent progress in several important areas over the next two years. Top priority is:
• Improving the consistency of UNDP’s delivery at country level, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected countries.

• UNDP to focus more of its efforts on its areas of comparative advantage, especially around crisis prevention and recovery.

• Evidence of how UNDP is controlling costs and achieving greater efficiency in its operations and much better reporting of results.

We will continue to fund UNDP at 2010 levels, closely monitor performance and review progress within two years, when we may increase or decrease our core funding.

And those numbers are quite big, 2008/9 the latest I can find is £264m.

They take Lent very seriously in Lincolnshire

Very seriously indeed