Democracy Movement

Parties must wake up to EU policy opportunities, and threats

2012-01-10T14:45:00.002Z

When will our political leaders realise that the action they take when dealing with the European Union will have a direct and significant effect on their success at the polls?

Looking at lists of the issues people prioritise when it comes to voting in general elections, concern about Britain's relationship with the EU tends to linger some way behind the economy, schools, hospitals and crime.

But politicians make a huge mistake if they believe this means that people don't care about the issue.

The most recent evidence that EU policy can have a critical impact on a party's level of support is the bounce in the polls that the Conservatives appear to have enjoyed since David Cameron last month vetoed EU plans for a 'fiscal union' treaty.

Veto boost

An ICM survey for the Sunday Telegraph has given the Tories their highest rating since last year's general election and a six-point lead over Labour, up from two points before the pre-Christmas summit.

The poll puts the Tories up two points since the start of December on 40%, with Labour support sliding by two points to 34%, opening up the widest margin between the two parties in 18 months.

Other polls have confirmed the trend, with a post-summit BBC report highlighting polls by Ipsos Mori and YouGov that also put the Conservatives ahead of Labour for the first time this year.

Questioning people about the EU summit's outcome exposes the overwhelming public support for the Prime Minister's actions that underpins this poll shift. A Populus survey for The Times showed 57% felt Mr Cameron was right to use the veto while only 14% disagreed and another, for the Mail on Sunday, showed that 62% supported David Cameron's actions, while only 19% said he was wrong to use the veto.

Ed Miliband's response in the immediate aftermath of the summit, accusing the Prime Minister of being "out of touch", couldn't have been more ill-judged.

Poll threats

But this latest shift is far from the first time time polls have reacted sharply to how politicians act on the EU.

When, back in October 2007, Gordon Brown confirmed his support for the Lisbon Treaty and it became clear that he would not extend his party's previous promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution to the revised document, the result was an abrupt end to his honeymoon as the new Labour leader.

Brown actually increased his party's support through the September 2007 eruption of the Northern Rock crisis, when polls showed a three-point Labour lead mid-month widened to nearly eight points by the end of September. Even the events of early October that year, when the Conservatives unveiled a new inheritance tax policy and Brown was accused of having 'bottled' an early general election, resulted in him conceding only a slight lead to the Conservatives.

So far, not so bad for Mr Brown. Until, that is, later in October 2007, when he agreed to the final text of the Lisbon Treaty and made a statement to Parliament on the 22nd of that month. By the end of that week, Conservative support was growing again and Labour's ratings started a precipitous fall, ending the year at a punishing ten point deficit on the Conservatives as Gordon Brown turned up (late) in Brussels to sign the treaty.

The fact that this poll gap then remained broadly the same until late April 2008 shows that Labour's hair-raising fall in public support over a few short weeks between the end of October and mid December must have been due to some very particular event after both the peak of the Northern Rock bank run and the fallout from the party conferences.

It's impossible to dismiss that this was the period during which the deceit of the process of re-naming the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty became crystal clear and Gordon Brown confirmed that he would not grant us the EU referendum we had been promised.

But Brown has been far from alone in suffering at the polls as a result of his EU actions. Later, in November 2009, David Cameron suffered a similar fate when he also dropped his "cast iron guarantee" of a vote on "on any EU treaty" emerging from the negotiations that came up with the Lisbon Treaty.

The Conservative leader also suffered an immediate drop in public support that, as we speculated at the time might turn out to be the case, did indeed re-balance the polls in a way that resulted in Mr Cameron's failure to secure a clear majority at the general election, forcing him to form accede to coalition government.

Arguably, the Liberal Democrats have suffered the worst of all from this trend in public opinion. Languishing in the polls and seemingly looking down the barrel of an electoral gun, the party's leaders still don't seem to realise where they have been going so wrong.

Referendum opportunity

This clear and growing pattern in how EU policy moves public support to an extent that affects electoral fortunes should provide much food for thought for any party aiming to improve its chances of obtaining a clear majority at the next general election.

Obvious focus should be placed on where party policy is at stark odds with public opinion and where better does such an opportunity lie than over whether there should be a referendum on Britain's EU membership?

The Sunday Telegraph's ICM poll also confirms that people do not back Mr Cameron's decision to rule out a public vote on whether Britain should stay in or leave the European Union. A majority of 59% to 25% (pdf, Table 5) say that there should be a proper in-out vote and most (51%) wish to see one in this Parliament.

If one veto, to unknown effect, can deliver a four-point boost in the polls, it's not hard to imagine the electoral rewards awaiting the party that grants that EU referendum.

New EU deal faces multiple referendum threats

2011-12-13T18:53:00.001Z

A recent EUobserver article has highlighted how the 'fiscal compact' deal agreed at last week's EU summit could yet be scuppered by referendums and legal delays in numerous participating countries.

The deal is designed to extend EU control over the tax and spend policies of the elected national governments of its member countries by transferring greater power over national budgets to EU institutions.

Due to David Cameron's veto, the deal will now have to be agreed between the 'euro-plus' group of participating countries outside the institutions of the EU.

But according to EUobserver, "serious obstacles are beginning to materialise in Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania and Denmark, while Finland, Latvia and the Czech Republic may also present the process with additional hurdles."

Treaty hurdles

In Ireland, aspects of the deal are being put to the country's attorney-general for a verdict on whether a referendum is required, but the Irish Europe minister, Lucinda Creighton, has fed speculation by saying there is a 50/50 chance of a public vote.

Today the Irish government has said that a decision on a referendum will not be made until March, once a final text of the deal is agreed.

In the Netherlands, prime minister Mark Rutte has insisted that a referendum would not be needed. But with a highly EU-critical party as his partner in a coalition government and the opposition Labour party saying that new elections would be required if the deal amounts to a transfer of power to Brussels, Mr Rutte may face problems getting the deal through the Dutch Parliament. The country's Socialist Party and the Greens have also called for a referendum.

In Austria, government officials have also indicated that the creation of a fiscal union would require a referendum and, in Romania, while supporting the deal, President Traian Basescu has said that a new treaty would need a two-thirds majority in the Romanian parliament and approval in a public vote.

In Finland, prime minister Jyrki Katainen has dismissed any talk of problems in ratifying the deal. But the country's constitutional committee has ruled that replacing unanimity by majority voting on the EU's bailout funds would be unconstitutional, since it could result in a loss of parliamentary control over Finland's financial contributions. According to EUobserver, a Finnish official has said that it would be "impossible" for the government to negotiate this problem away.

Denmark’s new prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, has so far not commented on whether the deal would provoke a Danish referendum, but leaders of the other two parties in her governing coalition have said that a vote might be needed. Crucial to a Danish decision may be the Red-Green Alliance, a key part of the governing coalition, which is a strong opponent of the EU’s "neo-liberal policies".

Denmark rejected euro membership in a referendum back in September 2000, so moves to allow the EU to govern the country's economic policy may be seen as a breach of this settlement.

In Latvia, the government has signed up to the 'fiscal union' deal, but many politicians have voiced a sense of betrayal over the imposition by the EU of strict austerity measures and cuts in EU structural funds. Raising the spectre of a referendum as a bargaining chip to win additional EU aid would only take the votes of 50 of the 100-member Latvian parliament.

Finally, the Czech Republic is of course home to Vaclav Klaus, the national president who caused the EU so much trouble over the Lisbon Treaty. While a referendum would not be automatically required on the changes, President Klaus has the power at least to delay the law-making process by holding back his signature, which must be applied to all new legislation.

Navel-gazing

It looks like the EU could well be in for yet another lengthy period of introspection over their bid to create 'fiscal union' and, even if the hurdles above can all be overcome, the deal still does nothing to address the core underlying problems of the scale of debt and low growth causing problems in several eurozone economies.

It's precisely because the EU seems far more interested in itself than in advancing the measures European countries need in order to prosper in the fast-moving, 21st century world that calls in Britain for an EU referendum - such as are being advanced by groups like the People's Pledge campaign - and support for a new deal with the EU are only likely to grow.

Cameron's veto will feed demand for an EU referendum

2011-12-09T11:53:00.013Z

Why should the EU be given the right to govern and tax (arguably out of existence) what is, in Europe at least, a predominantly British-based industry that makes a huge contribution to our economy?

That's the question critics of David Cameron's actions at the recent EU summit will have to answer, if they hope to make a case against the Prime Minister's use of Britain's veto.

In a remarkable move during the EU's latest bid to resolve the bloc's debt crisis, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel have chosen to risk their ability to quickly implement measures that would increase eurozone fiscal discipline over an attempt to impose EU regulation and a transaction 'Tobin' tax on Britain's financial services industry.

Confronting Britain in this way and provoking use of our veto over a bid to gain control over, and income from, the majority of Europe's financial sector that is based in Britain is an extraordinary demonstration of misplaced priorities from the EU at a time when the urgency of eurozone restructuring is paramount.

If the EU is serious about finding quick solutions to the eurozone debt crisis, they would surely have dropped such intrusive demands to interfere in another country's affairs in order to use the far speedier existing treaty mechanisms available?

But instead of coming away from this latest summit with a deal to calm market fears of national defaults and the disintegration of the euro, the determination of the 'Merkozy' partnership to regulate Britain's financial services industry has introduced a delay of more than three months for replacement 'fiscal compact' structures to be planned.

UK industry

A look at how vital financial services are to the UK economy shows clearly why David Cameron had to resist this arrogant 'Merkozy' push to take over and tax the City.

Referencing a PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, a recent Open Europe study highlighted that in the 2009-10 tax year the UK financial services sector made a tax contribution of over £54 billion, or 11.2% of the government's income from all taxes during that year.

The industry also contributed a £35bn trade surplus in 2010, playing a critical role in Britain's trade balance and, according to TheCityUK - an independent membership body promoting the UK financial services sector - nearly 2 million jobs are at stake.

Euro greed

But it's also clear from the same Open Europe report why other EU leaders want to force Britain to concede to EU government in this area. The City hosts a huge proportion of European and indeed global activity in many financial markets.

It's home to the largest foreign exchange market in the world, the largest insurance market in Europe, dominates the private equity industry and around 80% of the European-based hedge fund assets are managed in the UK.

There is clearly little point in a European financial transactions tax, the proceeds of which EU institutions hope to pocket, and proposed regulation if the UK is excluded.

New structures

Unless the EU relents on its stubbornness over financial services, a separate deal outside the EU's architecture will now have to be established by the countries who wish to participate in the new eurozone 'fiscal compact'.

This will not just set down new rules imposing stronger EU controls over national budgets but also how to enforce them. No mean ambition.

Either other EU leaders will realise the scale of the task ahead of them in respect of putting together such an inter-governmental deal and will conclude that it was stupid to push Britain away over financial regulation.

Alternatively, the countries who have expressed a wish to participate in the new 'fiscal compact' will forge ahead regardless and the result will raise new questions about how that will affect the balance of power between Britain and the other 26 EU members.

Should such a new voting block, doubtless also working informally within the European Union institutions as well as outside, be willing to consistently out-vote Britain in a range other EU policy areas, this will only feed demands for a proper reconsideration and referendum on the totality of Britain's membership of the EU.

If it becomes clear that we have even less influence over EU law-making than is already the case, then there is no remaining reason why we should wish to accede to the rules that come out of the EU nor pay the billions of pounds every year that Britain contributes to the EU's budget.

Beneficially, the result of this latest summit could be that holding an 'in/out' EU referendum - such as the one demanded by the People's Pledge campaign - and forging a new, 'free trade plus voluntary co-operation' deal will start to look all the more appealing.

New euro 'masterplan' already showing flaws

2011-12-07T19:59:00.000Z

The EU is this week limbering up to reveal a last-ditch 'masterplan' to save the euro.

Over many months, a succession of summits have invented ever bigger sums of money the EU intends to throw at the eurozone debt crisis without any concept of how to achieve them.

So far the EU's only strategy seems to have been to try to intimidate the markets into submission rather than come up with a coherent solution to the euro's glaring flaws.

Clearly, and unsurprisingly, that hasn't been working. Not only has the lack of detail behind every EU pronouncement failed to convince, but the perpetual indecision by the EU has demonstrated amply what has for some time been a central tenet of eurosceptic thought.

Namely, that the EU as a decision-making structure is too rigid and incapable of acting with the dynamism required to secure Europe's success and prosperity in our fast-moving 21st century world. The EU, being a 1920s idea founded on a 1950s view of the world, has never looked more out of date.

In this context, it's hardly surprising that the ratings agencies have continued to criticise and downgrade the credit-worthiness of euro member countries.

Flawed auto-sanctions

But this week, the EU has finally changed tack. Talks led by the 'Merkozy' partnership of the French and German leaders have shifted from broadcasting fantasy funding plans to discussing 'refounding' the EU through treaty changes that will enforce 'fiscal union'. The plans are being touted as what the eurozone needs to survive in its current form.

More details will emerge later this week, but one of the key measures already being proposed is the idea of automatic sanctions against those countries that breach eurozone borrowing rules - particularly the rule that budget deficits should not exceed 3% of GDP.

Yet, 23 EU countries, including 14 eurozone members, are already in the EU's 'excessive deficit procedure' as a result of breaching this 3% rule which, under the current Stability and Growth Pact, should already have provoked sanctions.

This is despite the fact that the rules of the original Pact were softened in 2005, with 'exceptional circumstances' being permitted for deficits above 3%, 'other relevant factors' allowed to be taken into account before a deficit is considered excessive, and longer deadlines for corrective action.

According to the EU Treaty, sanctions can include requiring euro countries to publish additional information before issuing bonds and securities; inviting the European Investment Bank to reconsider its lending policy towards the country; requiring the country concerned to give the EU a non-interest-bearing deposit until the excessive deficit has been resolved; or, finally, imposing fines of an "appropriate size".

If auto-sanctions are approved in the looming negotiations, unless made retrospective, only Finland, Luxembourg and Estonia would potentially be subject to them as only those countries are not currently in the excessive deficit procedure.

This would render the proposal effectively usless towards having a short term impact on problem countries nor, in any case, will they be any solution to the underlying debt and growth problems of economies in difficulty. They simply punish, don't resolve.

Key questions

Now EU leaders are lurching back towards toughening the Pact up again, this provokes a series of further questions.

Firstly, given sanctions for excessive deficits have been available to the EU since the euro launched, why exactly have none ever yet been applied under the current Stability & Growth Pact rules?

Secondly, will the 14 euro countries already suffering 'excessive deficits' be let off auto-sanctions until they get back on track and then fined only after future transgressions? How much will future breaches cost them?

More broadly, how will automatically imposing financial sanctions on these countries help them get out of their debt and low growth problems that tend to provoke excess deficits in the first place? Won't such sanctions simply make their economic problems worse, and is that why none have ever yet been applied?

Referendum unlocked?

Finally, this proposal also provokes a key political question for David Cameron on the question of a referendum, since what is being proposed, in respect of auto-sanctions at least, is basically a beefing up of the existing EU Stability and Growth Pact.

Despite not being in the euro, Britain is subject to the Stability Pact rules and committed to "endeavour to avoid an excessive government deficit", although we are not bound by the penalty clauses should our endeavours fail. This was a key element of our opt-out from euro membership. We are, however, one of the nine non-euro countries also currently listed as being in the excessive deficit procedure.

If the mooted treaty changes centre on amending the Stability Pact clauses, the Prime Minister had better ensure our euro opt-out protocol is amended to exclude Britain from the new measures. If we are drawn into the new auto-sanctions, it will impossible for David Cameron to avoid holding a treaty referendum, since his 'referendum lock' will have been prised open.

Reality check

As Conservative MEP Roger Helmer put it this week, asking whether the euro can be saved "is like asking a cancer patient how we save the tumour. The euro is the disease, not the patient."

Prosperity and democracy on our continent are what needs to be saved and that's more likely if the rigidity of the euro is abandoned for at least several of its current members.

It's time for Europe's political leaders to drop attempts to save their ill-judged euro project, admit it's doomed at least in its current form, and start instead planning how to mitigate the effects on the financial system of several departures.

Birthplace of democracy experiences Brussels 'regime change'

2011-11-08T13:40:00.013Z

by Marc Glendening

The European Union has always boasted that it is a force for democracy; a guardian against a return to the authoritarian politics that have haunted various parts of our continent.

This, of course, as recent events in Greece have confirmed, is total nonsense. The EU elite power system is, and always has been, the major post-war threat to liberal, democratic values.

The whole edifice was designed, as John Laughland demonstrated in his seminal book The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea, to limit the capacity of citizens to hold their rulers to account.

The idea of a pan-European government was driven in its early, post-war days by prominent individuals who had been associated with the fascist politics of the inter-war period. People such as Robert Schuman, who was an official in Petain's Vichy government, and Paul-Henri Spaak (active in the Belgian fascist movement).

The European Commission's original name, revealingly, was 'the Higher Authority'; a non-elected body that was meant to preside over the elected member governments; as indeed it does, albeit together now with the European Council, the grouping that brings together the political heads of government.

Post-democracy

The EU is now returning the peoples trapped within it to a pre-democratic situation. Recently, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has articulated very directly what is expected of the governments and the peoples within the Eurozone.

Referring to the short-lived decision by the Greek prime minister to consult his people in a referendum as to whether or not they wanted to proceed with the EU/IMF bailout programme, he came out with this piece of typically Euro-Orwellian 'double-think';

"Giving people a voice is always legitimate, but [here we go] the solidarity of all Eurozone countries is not possible unless each one agrees to measures deemed necessary."

Deemed necessary by who? EU leaders who have no electoral mandate whatsoever in Greece? Further demonstrating the thinking inside the Brussels machine, an EU official who refused to be named commented in a similar vein;

"We are at war. The crisis is that bad. And its time that Greece put party politics aside and demonstrate national unity."

The logic of these sinister authoritarian statements is that no electorate should be given the ability to contradict the priorities of the Euro-elite, who will decide all the key policies relating to public expenditure levels, which industries should be in the state and private sectors, rates of taxation and so on.

'Party politics' must be put aside, apparently. Where and when did we last hear these sentiments in Europe?

Regime change

BBC Newsnight's Paul Mason also alluded to the fact that the Euro-elite is now explicitly engaging in 'regime change' when he took on the French president at a press conference last week over the democratic implications of what was taking place. He asked Mr Sarkozy;

"It's evident that you and Angela Merkel, the two most powerful governments in Europe, are trying to change the governments of Italy and Greece. How is that just? And once started, where does it stop?"

This was met with an outraged response from Mr Sarkozy about Mason coming from an island and "not understanding the subtleties of the European construction". It would only have been marginally less crass had Mason come back with insults about Sarkozy sharing an obsession for pan-European government because he comes from the same country as Napoleon.

Mason also revealed rumour that, during the week prior to Italy accepting IMF oversight of its public finances, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had phoned the Italian president to explore the possibility of a change of government and that, according to Mason;

"EU officials have certainly been in contact with the Greek opposition to explore the creation of a national unity government."

EU placemen

Not content with imposing an austerity programme on the Greek government, the Euro-elite have also evidently been intervening to help to manufacture a revolt within the Prime Minister's centre-left PASOK party designed to remove him from office and bring about a new coalition government.

The aim was clearly not just to block the bailout referendum that George Papandreou had announced but also to prevent an election being called that might have thrown up results inconvenient for the Euro project.

To replace Papandreou, the EU elite have been pushing for Lucas Papademos, a former official in the European Central Bank and also wants another of its trusted old boys, former commissioner Mario Monti, to replace Signore Bunga-Bunga in Rome's hot seat.

The plan is now to concentrate new powers with the Euro-elite and to do this in a way that means there is no requirement to hold referenda or even, in most countries, debates and votes in national parliaments.

No say

Article 352 of the EU treaty will be invoked to force through most of the proposed changes, including Commission surveillance of national budgets, while it is likely that the EU will in December also have to announce a new mini-treaty for bigger measures like the Financial Transactions Tax.

Heads of government, including David Cameron, hope that by bringing about the forthcoming transfer of powers this way, calls for an EU referendum will be neutralised. The argument will be that the treaty is too insubstantial to amount to a constitutional change.

Of course, Sarkozy and his fellow anti-democratic elitists have form in this area, having himself back in 2005 ignored the overwhelming French rejection of the EU Constitution in a referendum and then used his majority in the French assembly to steamroller through the tactically renamed Lisbon treaty.

The exact same thing happened in Holland following a vote of 62% against transferring new powers to the EU and, on two separate occasions within the past ten years, the Irish people have voted against new EU treaties only to be told that they must vote again.

Yet with its new policy of regime change, the EU's anti-democratic inclinations are now being taken to new, extreme heights. So when the European Movement next go on about their beloved institution's great commitment to democracy, just laugh out very loud, please.

--------------------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

Dazzling numbers obscure real eurozone deal

2011-10-27T18:46:00.007+01:00

Another day, another eurozone rescue.

We have, of course, been here before. Today's deal is similarly long on rhetoric and short on detail, but that won't prevent the markets bouncing and the media once again reporting that the crisis is solved.

Yet, in a few weeks time, they will again all realise that the latest 'solution' is far from that at all.

Just as happened back in July, many crucial details of the deal are yet to emerge and have the capacity to cause a rapid unravelling.

How exactly the European Financial Stability Facility will be leveraged from its remaining €250 billion to an extraordinary €1 trillion (£880bn) - whether by the provision of risk insurance or a special purpose investment fund into which countries like China and the Gulf states will be asked to contribute - will not be revealed until the end of next month.

Similarly, will banks be able to find the required extra €106bn in capital? And whether private investors will actually swap their Greek bonds for those with a 50% repayment reduction also remains to be seen.

According to the BBC's Robert Peston, the agreement of the banks "in principle" to slashing what Greece owes them by half came at the last minute. But yesterday's Irish Times highlights unsurprising scepticism that what is being asked of them with respect to Greece represents "an exceptional and unique solution" and does not set a precedent for what may happen should the difficulties in other countries worsen.

Investors could yet decide that the warm words of EU politicians and appointees about Greece being a special case are too wafer thin relative to the economic forces that could yet come to bear on the far bigger economies of Spain or Italy.

Even if the banks go through with the deal, many observers doubt that the resulting reduction of Greece's debt to 120% of GDP by 2020 (ie. the same as Italy's) is in any case going to lighten the country's burden sufficiently to enable a rebalancing of its economy.

Economic union

A bigger problem in how today's deal is being reported is how the media are once again too hypnotised by the glittering numbers to look at the small print.

What many are missing this time are the details under the summit conclusion headings (pdf) 'Economic and fiscal co-ordination and surveillance', 'Governance structure of the euro area' and 'Further integration' which cover the EU's growing power-grab over taxation and how euro members run their economies.

Back in July, commentators made the same mistake. A far greater focus was applied to the new repayment terms for Greece and the possibility of increased funds for the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) than on the real gem of the package for EU leaders.

Namely, the granting of permission for EFSF money, guaranteed by eurozone members, to be used to recapitalise the worst-afflicted banks in particular countries - a responsibility that would normally have to be fulfilled by national treasuries.

Obscured integration

Again today, dazzled by completely unqualified numbers, the media are overlooking the far more significant passages of the latest deal that relate to deepening economic union, greater EU powers to interfere in the budgets of member countries and the introduction of EU taxes.

See Paragraph 27a, which says that "for euro Member States in excessive deficit procedure, the Commission and the Council will be enabled to examine national draft budgets and adopt an opinion on them before their adoption by relevant national parliaments".

Far from applying to one or two financially irresponsible cases, 13 of the 17 euro member countries are currently in the EU's excessive deficit procedure. So this represents a substantial extension of the influence of the unelected EU Commission over national parliaments with respect to the politically highly sensitive tax and spend policies of euro member countries.

Paragraph 29 goes on to discuss the "Pragmatic co-ordination of tax policies in the euro area" as a "necessary element of stronger economic policy co-ordination" and confirms that "Legislative work on the Commission proposals for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and for a Financial Transaction Tax is ongoing."

And Paragraph 35 instructs the European Council to bring forward an "interim report" in December 2011 on "strengthening economic convergence within the euro area, improving financial discipline and deepening economic union" with a report on how to implement agreed measures including "the possibility of limited Treaty changes" due by March 2012.

Flaws not fixed

Ultimately, even if today's uncertainties pan out as the EU desires, the reality is that this latest deal will still not be enough to cement the euro's cracks.

The reason is simple. There is no solution to the eurozone's problems other than for the most indebted countries to break the fixed exchange rate system and leave the euro, to restore competitiveness and growth to their economies. But of course, EU politicians and especially its employees refuse to let go of their flawed single currency project.

While the markets are bringing some realities to bear, the question is for how much longer can Europe's political elite get away with putting off the inevitable crunch, in the process worsening the mess they have created and now flushing almost incomprehensible sums of public money to protect the failing euro?

A Tobin tax will benefit the EU nomenklatura, not the peoples of Europe

2011-10-07T19:59:00.010+01:00

by Marc Glendening

At the Sarkozy-Merkel mini-summit on
16 August, held to enable the French and German leaders to discuss the future of the eurozone, one of the concrete proposals that emerged was the idea of a Tobin, or ‘Robin Hood’, tax.

Sniffing a financial opportunity, Jose Manuel Barroso was on 29 September quick to reiterate the Commission’s desire to see such a tax introduced.

There is clearly a growing momentum among the EU elite to impose levies on financial transactions, a portion of which will be diverted to EU coffers. But beyond the debate concerning the efficacy or otherwise of this proposed measure, there are two other questions that need to be addressed.

First, should a Tobin tax be applied to the non-Eurozone member countries - Britain, Denmark and Sweden - as Brussels is demanding, even if the elected representatives of these countries do not want it?

And second, does it necessarily follow, should it be introduced, that a proportion of the money raised be handed over to the coffers of the European Commission, rather than for it all to go to hard-pressed national treasuries at a time of public sector cuts and tax hikes?

EU waste

Those, like the Robin Hood Tax campaign, who support this proposal in the abstract should think twice about the Sarkozy-Merkel proposal in particular. Do they really want more cash to be directed towards an organisation notorious for fraud and waste, excessively high wages and whose budget has not been cleared by the Court of Auditors for the past 16 years?

Is it right, for example, that Peter Mandelson is still drawing 50% of his annual Commission salary of £180,000 three years after leaving office in Brussels? Lord Mandelson is taxed at the EU ‘community rate’ of 26% on his earnings - why doesn’t he pay the full rate of either UK or, alternatively, Belgian taxation?

Or do the peoples of Europe really believe it is appropriate that money raised in their countries should be used to heavily subsidise the privileged, private education of the offspring of the Brussels Nomenklatura in their special European Schools?

EU fundraising

The French and German leaders in making their Tobin tax demand were in fact adding their weighty support to a proposal the Commission has long been making.

Brussels desperately wants to find new ways to raise an increasing proportion of its ever-expanding budget through taxes levied against the individual citizens of the member countries. In this way the EU elite will be able to replace national contributions with so-called ‘own resources’.

Once enough streams of direct taxation are in place, Brussels could by-pass all the tedious arm-twisting of the member state governments it currently has to undertake and just keep ramping up the levies European citizens individually have to pay.

The Commission estimates that it could raise between 31 and 50 billion euros every year on the basis of just a 0.1% tax on stocks, bonds and derivatives.

Merkel and Sarkozy are also concerned about how on earth the EU is going to be able to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing, especially since the German government is adamant that the idea of Eurobonds - whereby northern Europe would become responsible for the debts run up Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and others - is a complete non-starter.

Understandably, Angela Merkel does not want to stand for re-election in 2013 on a policy of having incorporated the German people into a permanent European debt union.

The idea of a Tobin tax, together with other ideas floated by the Commission - such as taxes on air travel, emissions-trading and the sending of emails - is much more attractive to the German chancellor because these would also be directed at citizens from Britain and the other non-Eurozone countries, as well as those from the states inside the single currency.

These new planned euro taxes are therefore a way of making three important net donor countries responsible for the cost of helping to maintain the dysfunctional euro system they have opted to stay outside of.

Cameron's challenge

David Cameron will no doubt claim that the Tobin tax and other measures cannot be applied to the UK as we will have a veto over the next tranche of powers Brussels is seeking to gain.

In the near future, the EU will attempt to re-define Article 136 of the treaty in order to help it establish ‘central economic governance’. On top of this, there might even be a new treaty.

However, it must not be forgotten that our government thought it was exempt from having to contribute to the Eurozone bail-outs and was forced under Article 122 of the Lisbon treaty to hand over £12.5 billion towards helping Ireland and Portugal. We are tied into doing this for another two years.

John Major also believed he had negotiated certain opt-outs concerning the Maestricht treaty only to discover that they were worthless once the EU had got Britain to ratify the document.

At the end of the day, it will be the Eurozone majority within the EU, backed up by the European Court of Justice, that will have the final say in interpreting what our legal obligations and exemptions are, and are not, under an elastic EU treaty open to an infinite range of interpretations.

It should be for the elected and accountable national parliaments throughout Europe to decide if they do, or do not, want a Tobin tax following rigorous debate about the pros and cons of this policy.

If it is introduced, the amount raised by hitting the bankers in this way should go exclusively to, and be spent by, those who are democratically accountable. Not remote EU figures who cannot be removed from office by the voters of the member countries.

----------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

Cameron to support creation of Euro-State without democratic consent

2011-08-17T18:11:00.007+01:00

by Marc Glendening

The British government in March gained the initial approval of Parliament to give the EU at a later date new powers over economic decision-making, through a redefining of Article 136 of the Lisbon treaty.

As was confirmed yesterday (August 16) at the Sarkozy-Merkel mini summit, Brussels intends establishing central economic governance under the leadership of the EU president Herman van Rompuy. Ostensibly, this will only apply to the Eurozone countries.

As People’s Pledge advisory council member Douglas Carswell MP, among others, has warned, giving the green light for the creation of such a powerful centralised authority carries huge risks for Britain, together with other non-euro countries Denmark and Sweden.

A unified Eurozone voting bloc will be able to force through whatever measures it wants to, aided by the European Court of Justice which has the final say in any dispute regarding interpretations of the treaty.

Remember, back in May 2010 it was decided by the eurozone majority that Britain and the other non-euro countries must contribute to the bailouts under Article 122 of the treaty. Our government believed, in its naivety, that this article was only about helping countries that were experiencing ‘natural disasters’.

Whatever opt-outs David Cameron believes he has secured will ultimately mean nothing so long as the EU enjoys legal supremacy over us. Once he has given his consent to a new Article 136, the gates of the eurozone Gothic castle will clamp shut for all EU member states.

No consent

There is also a moral dilemma relating to this issue, but not one that concerns the current UK government, sadly: Should Britain really be enabling the EU to further extend its undemocratic control over the lives of German, Greek, Irish, French, Italian and other eurozone peoples when they will have no chance to give or withhold their democratic consent to what is being planned for them?

Remember, not one European electorate voted explicitly for the single currency project in a referendum. Opinion polls showed at the time the euro came into existence that a clear majority of the German people wanted to keep their national currency.

The legal instrument through which the new powers will be transferred from the member countries to the EU is Article 136 of the Lisbon treaty. When the time comes, the political heads of all the member countries, including David Cameron, will vote to change the wording of this article.

Blank cheque

As opponents of Lisbon have always warned, the treaty contains within it the means for the political elite to add new policy making controls to the EU portfolio without having to go through the lengthy and often politically messy process of ratifying new treaties through national parliaments or, heaven forbid, referendums.

This they are now in the process of doing. The Irish government is particularly keen to restrict the right of its voters to have a say. This will no doubt be tested in the courts by citizens demanding a referendum on what will clearly be an issue of constitutional significance.

It may still be that some of the measures the French and German governments want to force through will also require a new short treaty. For example, Angela Merkel has the problem to contend with of legal challenges before the German supreme court that claim that the bail-outs of Greece, Portugal and Ireland are unconstitutional as they violate Article 125 of the treaty which forbids paying off the debts of other eurozone countries.

While nothing has been decided yet, it might be that in order to overcome the objections of many German citizens, together with some politicians, Merkel will require an explicit re-writing of the treaty.

Miliband's opportunity

Even if this proves to be the case, our government has stated it will do whatever is required to facilitate a politically unified eurozone. Cameron will attempt to whip through Parliament, enthusiastically supported by the Lib Dems, naturally, any new treaty in addition to the beefed up Article 136.

It will be interesting to see how Ed Miliband plays all this. If he’s smart, Labour will oppose this Cameroonian chicanery and make common cause with the numerous Tory MPs who can be expected to defy their leadership on this. If this were to happen, it is not inconceivable that the government could be defeated and the Labour leader would be able to position himself as a champion of the rights of the British and other European peoples against the furtive, secretive political class.

If he doesn’t, he will confirm that he is just another dreary and untrustworthy political insider.

The good thing about all of this is that at least the fog is now clearing from the battlefield and a growing number of people appreciate what is at stake and that the stark reality is that Britain now needs to decide whether it is governed principally from Brussels or by those who are accountable to us through the ballot box, as in Switzerland and Norway.

It’s that simple. And this is where the People’s Pledge referendum campaign comes in.

---------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

EU re-negotiation is not an option

2011-08-10T12:48:00.004+01:00

by Marc Glendening

Regimes and politicians periodically feel the need to reiterate arguments and claims that they know to be untrue, we the recipients of their propaganda know to be untrue and they know that we know are untrue.

Yet, they feel strangely compelled to continue repeating their claims or impossibilist demands anyway.

One Tory equivalent of ‘widget production is running at record levels in the Upper Urals’, or ‘violent crime is at its lowest point in the UK for 50 years’, is the periodic re-articulation of the pretence that the EU treaty can, and should, be re-negotiated.

A number of Conservative EU-sceptics, including John Redwood, have recently tried to revive the line, in the wake of the Eurozone crisis, that the opportunity now exists for David Cameron to play real hardball with Brussels. Unless the EU returns powers over aspects of social policy and other matters, the UK should not sign any new treaty enabling the creation of ‘economic governance’ in the Eurozone, they urge.

That nice Dr Cameron, however, can be confidently expected to respond to this proposal by applying his trusty political sedative, based on a carefully crafted cocktail of pretending to take this demand seriously, combined with the making of vaguely sympathetic, soothing noises.

A sense of calm will return to the Tory ‘patient’. And nothing will then happen, except, of course, that the current government will agree to a greater EU centralisation of power, claiming that none of this will apply to non-Eurozone countries.

Reality check

My suspicion is that 90% of the Tory re-negotiatists know that the choice now confronting us is, in reality, whether to continue accepting whatever comes down the tube from Brussels or to quit membership.

They must appreciate that forcing a repatriation of powers is an impossibility since the Lib Dems will simply not permit it, as Nick Clegg has recently confirmed, plus any attempt at re-negotiation would take months - possibly years - of complex arm-twisting and coalition-building in Brussels.

It also seems unlikely that the EU will risk presenting a new treaty any time soon. A lot of the economic governance agenda will be forced through using a revamped Article 136 of the post-Lisbon EU treaty, so avoiding any risk of a referendum in Ireland or anywhere else.

Back in March, our government won the backing of Parliament to agree to the EU beefing up Article 136 with absolutely no strings attached. Brussels is now using the Lisbon treaty changes to give itself new powers not spelt out in the original text of the treaty.

Strategic mistake

Accepting the stark reality before us, however, is not something at this stage, for politically understandable reasons, most Tory (as well as Labour) EU-sceptical MPs and wannabee politicians want to acknowledge.

Putting forward the case for a theoretical re-negotiation is therefore a much more attractive option: it enables politically ambitious EU-sceptics to sound simultaneously radical without instantly placing them outside the mainstream (instant death in today’s conformist, cautious and superficial political culture).

Inevitably, the central demand the Tory boys and girls make in this context is the repatriation of employment and other aspects of social policy. But this is a strategic disaster from an anti-EU perspective, because the Social Chapter has obviously been popular amongst those on the left.

Targeting this area can only undermine the struggle to build a mass, democratic popular front across the political spectrum for a referendum on EU membership - the only way now to change our relationship with the EU. Clearly, the centre-right on its own does not have the strength to deliver this objective.

It is as unwise for EU-sceptical conservatives to whine on about the Social Chapter as it would be for pro-EU Tories to, say, crow about Brussels imposing public sector cuts on the Eurozone and centrally demanding the liberalisation of a range of services.

To do so is to potentially drive a wedge in the coalition of forces that is in the process of being created around the referendum demand.

Broad alliance

The building of this cross-party alliance on Europe is a delicate business that requires the different component parts to apply a self-denying ordinance. It means emphasising the issues and demands that unite rather divide left, right and centre.

To employ a New Labour-ism, the EU-sceptical ‘narrative’ needs to make it clear to the British people that, so long as Brussels remains legally supreme over the member states, it doesn’t matter whether the electorate want public ownership to be re-established over the railways or postal services, or instead want greater economic deregulation of employment policy and other areas.

These and other key decisions will not be made by law-makers accountable to the electorate. Proper democratic political conflict between left and right will only resume once we are free of EU control.

Presuming it is accepted that we all acknowledge that there is no real prospect of re-negotiation, Tory EU-sceptics should either 'out' themselves as now being overtly anti-EU or, if they cannot bring themselves to do this, they should refrain from reiterating European policy demands that the left do not share.

Such demands inhibit the work of those waging the battle for independence through the building of a pro-referendum alliance.

---------------------------------------------------------------

written by Marc Glendening
This article was published yesterday on ConservativeHome

Peter Hain was right! EU moves to full fiscal union

2011-07-25T10:19:00.006+01:00

by Marc Glendening

Respect where it is due. Peter Hain, when he was still a principled politician of the Labour left, predicted in his prescient book Ayes to the Left that the European single currency would lead inexorably to full fiscal union and this was one of the reasons he believed we should stay away from this elitist project.

"A European Bank independent of democratic control and dedicated to almost exclusively to price stability must be reversed. It is economically disastrous and politically dangerous", he asserted correctly.

A short while later, Tony Blair offered him the job of being Europe minister and, low and behold, Mr Hain had discovered the joys of New Labour and membership of the single currency.

So what was it, exactly, Mr Hain, that suddenly attracted you to the European views of the then all powerful leader of your party?

Euro prediction

In his book, written in 1995, Peter Hain went on to claim that the Brussels budget would have to be increased “three to four times” in order that a system of fiscal transfers could be established so that huge sums of money could be injected into those economies within the Eurozone that were struggling with the interest and exchange rates determined by the European Central Bank.

Last week's second Greek bail-out of €109 billion (£96 billion) and the outlining of the future direction the EU in relation to economic policy, including the expansion of the powers of its bail-out fund, confirm the Hain thesis.

A jubilant Nicolas Sarkozy claimed the crisis summit in Brussels represented "a historic moment" and promised that "by the end of the summer, Angela Merkel and I will be making joint proposals on economic government in the eurozone. Our ambition is to seize the Greek crisis to make a quantum leap in eurozone government… There is no European Monetary Fund yet, but nearly”.

Whether German, French, Dutch, Finnish, Swedish, Danish and other taxpayers from EU member countries feel quite as ecstatic at the prospect of having to stump up billions of extra euros to help keep afloat the single currency project is another matter and a factor few in the media have focused much thought on.

EU taxes

While the whole EU project has been designed to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to hold the Pan-European political class to account on key issues (hence the elite’s fear of referenda), it is probable that many of them will use their votes increasingly in national elections to express their displeasure.

British taxpayers will be further dragged into this crisis in the short-term if Portugal and Ireland require new bail-outs before 2013. We are obligated under Article 122 of the Lisbon treaty to do this, just as we were first time round with these two countries. This is in addition to the amounts we have put in through the IMF, including of course to Greece.

In the longer-term, the EU plans to introduce a range of new Brussels-set taxes that will be levied against all individuals from the member states. This is the only way Brussels will be able to build a treasury on the scale Peter Hain so accurately predicted fifteen years ago.

Sudden impact

When he was Europe minister in 2002, Peter Hain evoked Clint Eastwood in the cult classic movie Dirty Harry with the words 'Make my day' in challenging EU-sceptics to have the courage to debate him about the single currency.

Sadly, unlike Harry taking on a rabid gun-toting psychopath on the streets of San Francisco, Mr Hain turned out to be all mouth and no trousers.

Despite the Democracy Movement offering to stage a public debate between the then minister and pro-pound Labour National Executive Committee member Mark Seddon (now director of the People’s Pledge), Peter Hain failed to take up the challenge he had rhetorically set.

Instead, he embarked on a national speaking tour in support of the euro that was much more in keeping with the New Labour ethos of the times: no opposing speeches were allowed!

Perhaps he was worried that Mark Seddon would have used against him the compelling arguments he had himself expressed in Ayes to the Left.

--------------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

Euro in meltdown: Let's break free sooner rather than later

2011-06-16T17:02:00.003+01:00

by Marc Glendening

The new Democracy Movement campaign, Out of the EU and into the World, gives 5 positive reasons why we need to free ourselves from the Little Europeanist vision that has so dominated the thinking of the political class for the past 50 years or so.

There is a huge opportunity now for those of us who have a more modern, international future for our country. A growing number of people are open to the idea Britain should liberate itself from centralised EU control.

The current crisis in the eurozone is completely undermining the once commonly held belief that a politically united Europe is 'inevitable'. The task we now face is to make the British people aware that unless our country leaves the EU we risk being sucked into the ideologically fanatical attempt to prop up the single currency. This will have terrible repercussions for ourselves, as well as the peoples of the other member states.

UK taxpayers have already been forced under Article 122 of the Lisbon treaty (a measure supposedly concerned with showing solidarity to countries experiencing 'natural disasters') to risk £12.5 billion as part of the bail-outs for Greece, Ireland and Portugal, even though we, together with Denmark and Sweden, have chosen to stay outside the euro.

ECB exposed

According to Brussels, we are obligated until 2013 to continue handing over money to sustain the euro, in addition to our £17.5bn annual budget contribution. With many German and Finnish voters defying their EU-obsessed rulers on this issue, the Brussels based elite will probably attempt to make us stump up even more cash to finance further bailouts. Greece is in need of a second massive injection following the initial £110 billion it received last year.

In recent days, German officials have been reiterating to their British counterparts in the EU that we will be obliged under the terms of Article 122 to contribute more cash to the next Greek bailout. The Guardian (June 17) claims that Britain will have to find a further €15 billion should the second intervention reach €100 billion.

According to a recent Open Europe study (pdf), the European Central Bank is currently exposed to the tune of a staggering €444 billion worth of debt having provided cheap credit - in violation of the EU's own stated treaty obligations - to struggling banks and Eurozone governments. The ECB is holding €190 billion worth of Greek debt alone.

There is every possibility now that the increasingly toxic ECB will itself go bust within the next two years. Who will ultimately have to pick up the bill should this happen? Ostensibly, the national central banks and taxpayers of those countries within the eurozone.

Given the huge likely cost of recapitalising the ECB it is far from certain that the European political elite will be able to deliver the sums required from within the Eurozone alone. Just as Brussels forced taxpayers from the non-euro countries to contribute to the bailouts that have already taken place through a highly perverse interpretation of Article 122, there is absolutely nothing to stop them trying to pull off the same trick again.

Rule of law abandoned

It is the European Commission (the guardian and enforcer of the treaty), together with the Eurozone voting majority in the Council of Ministers and the European Court of Justice, that can determine what exactly are our financial obligations to the EU in this context.

As we have already experienced with Article 122, there are a range of elastically-worded articles in the treaty that are open to any self-serving interpretation the key EU bodies wish to construct. The rule of law simply does not apply in Brussels in any meaningful sense. So long as we are EU members, these unaccountable EU institutions will continue to enjoy supreme legal authority over ourselves and the other peoples of Europe.

Brussels is currently putting together a new package of measures designed to extend the degree of control the EU elite has over its subordinate entities. "Governing these very vast and equally diverse economies with a single currency is more of a challenge in a union of sovereign states than in a political federation," Jean-Claude Trichet, the ECB govenor, commented in a recent speech. "That is the reason the European Central Bank is stressing tirelessly the necessity of strongly reinforcing the euro area economic governance."

'Economic governance'

One plan is for all governments to have to submit their annual budget proposals to the unelected European Commission for approval before they are shown and voted on by national parliaments. Brussels also wants to start taxing all EU citizens individually.

The EU elite appreciate that it is going to be very hard in future to persuade member governments to keep increasing their national annual contributions. Herman van Rompuy, Jose Manuel Barroso, Trichet and the others are commendably open about the need now to complement monetary union with fiscal union.

When opponents of the euro predicted this would eventually have to happen, they were derided by the likes of Ken Clarke and Chris Huhne as hysterical scaremongers.

The notion that Britain, Denmark and Sweden will be able to absent themselves from the forthcoming financial and political drives to save the euro from collapse is therefore naive in the extreme. The full insanity of having established a European single currency in the absence of an already existing unified, Pan-European people prepared to support it with their taxes is now self-evident.

Jacques Delors and the other fanatical architects of the Eurozone believed that once they had set in stone the single currency everything else, by some functionalist magic, would fall into place. According to the EU-state-builders, the governments of the member states would then tamely accept the logic of the situation and agree to hand over ever more political powers concerning economic policy to Brussels, the business cycles of the diverse national economies would miraculously converge and the different European peoples would organically merge into one collective consciousness, complete with new sense of political identity and loyalty.

Germans would then not mind, so the theory went, being taxed to help out other parts of the Eurozone, any more than they currently object to having their contributions redistributed to other parts of the Federal Republic.

Silver lining

This scenario, of course, was a total and utter fantasy in the minds of some members of the political elite and, like the other authoritarian, grandiose political fantasies from the European past, has extremely dangerous implications for the ordinary citizens of our continent; the people who really have to live with the consequences.

The inevitable eventual collapse of the Eurozone will have unpleasant consequences for all European economies and beyond. However, the silver lining is that the EU in its current undemocratic form cannot survive. The problem though is that its collapse, or transformation into a much more diluted form, could be drawn out over a number of years.

As we are seeing, the EU political class will do everything possible in the short to medium-term to resist the inevitable and will throw huge sums of public money at a problem that is beyond their power to solve.

The imperative for the British people must now be that we minimise for ourselves the damaging implications of this disintegration and get the hell out, quick.

----------------------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

Denis MacShane's low tactics on an EU referendum

2011-05-18T11:47:00.011+01:00

by Marc Glendening

Despite having been reported to the police by Parliamentary authorities over allegations that he has abused his expenses, Denis MacShane MP is not keeping a low profile politically.

Those of us who have observed, and been subjected to, him over the years would expect nothing less. He is, in so many ways, a figure of great amusement yet the low political tactics he employs are worth becoming familiar with in order to better counter them.

He was in characteristic mud-slinging form on Radio 4's Start The Week on May 9th, when up against People's Pledge Advisory Council member Ruth Lea.

Ruth had introduced the People's Pledge and explained the case for an EU referendum to Andrew Marr. Not content with simply arguing against our right to be consulted on EU membership, Denis proceeded at every opportunity to refer to referendums as 'plebiscites'.

This was a classic MacShaneism; a crude attempt to smear any opposing EU-related view with the stench of fascism, the far-right, and, somewhat ironically perhaps in this context, political authoritarianism.

Smear tactics

The word plebicite is now exclusively associated with the ways in which Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler attempted to give their totalitarian regimes and projects the veneer of legitimacy by holding rigged tests of public opinion. Plebiscites were no more democratic than 'elections' in one party states or Zimbabwe and Iran.

In invoking this highly-charged historical concept MacShane was doing what he does best; playing the person, not the ball. It was the classic Blairite tactic of trying to distract those listening from the actual content of your opponent's arguments and associate them instead with deeply unattractive and sinister imagery.

In this way, MacShane was also engaging in the post-modernist tactic of deconstruction; taking a fundamental truth and deliberately subverting it. He wanted to turn the tables on Ruth Lea by substituting in the listener's mind her argument for greater democracy with the insinuation that those who advocate an EU referendum are really advancing an anti-democratic position.

Low grade

At the Fabian Society conference on Europe earlier this year when an opposing speaker made an entirely factual and non-jingoistic reference to Britain's traditionally liberal system of law, MacShane interupted his remarks by boisterously and grotesquely breaking into a loud rendition of Land of Hope and Glory, complete with exaggerated conducting gestures.

He assumed, being in playground bully mode, that the audience, who were largely with him on the EU issue, would burst into hysterical laughter and join in the mockery of the other speaker. Instead, he was greeted by an embarrassed and richly deserved silence.

He is a past master of this sort of disingenuous, but dangerous nonsense. For years he has accused EU-critics of being 'xenophobes', 'little Englanders' and of the 'far-right'. When he has been challenged to name names - to have the courage to apply these cowardly labels to the likes of Tony Benn, Bob Crowe, Kate Hoey, John Cryer, Kelvin Hopkins, Gisela Stuart and the legion of other left EU-sceptics - he fails to do so and hides away.

Again, tres post-modern and Third Way to simply refuse to acknowledge and confront inconvenient contradictions head on; to put up or shut up.

Real debate

There are honourable believers in the goal of a politically united Europe. People such as Mark Littlewood, John Stevens, Dr Stephen Haseler and Richard Laming. They start from first principles and try to convince others on the basis of intellectual content.

Dirty Den, however, prefers instead to go down a road similar to that travelled in the 1950s by the communist-baiting and smearing notorious Senator McCarthy in relation to anybody who was on the centre-left. For MacShane, substitute 'reds under the bed' with 'xenophobes in the closet' or wherever he thinks EU-critics reside.

Denis, when will you have the courage to debate the EU and to take on the idea of an EU referendum without recourse to evoking the memory of fascism?

----------------------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

DM backs new People's Pledge campaign for an EU referendum

2011-03-22T11:21:00.004Z

by Marc Glendening

You may have read over the past week about an exciting new initiative to force a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU - called the
People's Pledge.

We've received many enquiries about it in recent days, so I'm pleased to report that the Democracy Movement is enthusiastically backing this new campaign.

Launched last week in the futuristic setting of the Altitude 360 venue on the 29th floor of Millbank Tower, Westminster, the People's Pledge is a potent new all-party campaign to secure a referendum on whether we wish to be ruled by those we elect to Westminster - or by the unaccountable institutions of the European Union.

Broad support

The campaign has assembled an impressive spectrum of supporters include John Cryer MP (Labour), Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative), Jenny Jones AM (London Assembly Member, Green party), Marta Andreasen MEP (UKIP & former EU chief accountant), among many others.

It's chaired by businessman John Mills (Chairman, JML Group) and the director is Mark Seddon, ex editor of Tribune magazine and former member of the Labour National Executive Committee.

The prominent economist Ruth Lea is also a supporter, as are writers Fay Weldon CBE, Virginia Ironside and John King.

The campaign has the support not only of those who are opposed to, or sceptical about, the EU. It's also backed by those who are committed to Britain's continued EU membership - such as Keith Vaz, the former Europe minister and John Stevens, the former Conservative MEP - but who nevertheless acknowledge that the people should decide.

Unique pressure

But it's the campaign's strategy that really sets it apart from all previous referendum efforts and gives it a great chance of success.

The People's Pledge asks voters to pledge that they will only vote for a candidate at the next general election who promises to support a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU and to vote for it in the House of Commons.

Numbers of people signing the Pledge in each constituency will be displayed on the campaign's website alongside the MP's majority. This unique feature of the campaign will pile the pressure on MPs and their rival candidates, by enabling them to see exactly the strength of feeling in their area for the right to have a say on the EU - and how many votes they stand to gain, or lose, as a result of their stance on the issue.

The campaign's sophisticated website will also record and display each MP's voting record on all EU-related issues, available for any voter to look up using only their postcode, and will finally enable voters to hold their MP to account for their actions on the EU.

Local campaigns

From now until the next general election, through both national and local activities particularly in the marginal seats, supporters of the People's Pledge will be challenging MPs and their rival prospective candidates to declare their support for a referendum.

This campaign therefore presents a new and innovative way to harness and focus 'People Power' towards bringing about change in Britain's relationship with the EU. It's about pressuring the political elite into giving us what they have long denied us; a say on the future of our political system.

With the passing of the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty, and with a new forthcoming EU treaty designed to establish what Angela Merkel calls 'European economic governance', it is now clear that we as a people have to make a choice: Are we to be governed centrally from Brussels in a growing range of key policy areas or, instead, do we wish an alternative democratic future for our country?

Sign the People's Pledge

We're urging all our supporters to sign the People's Pledge and to encourage as many others as they know to do so as well.

While the People's Pledge will make the case for people to be consulted about the EU's powers, it will not take sides on whether Britain should be 'in' or 'out'. That's why, while working closely with the People's Pledge to secure a referendum, the Democracy Movement and other EU-critical groups will also continue independently to make the case for Britain to forge a new, genuinely co-operative relationship with our European neighbours that, unlike the EU, respects democracy.

When the People's Pledge is successful in securing that referendum, we who want change must ensure we are in a position to WIN it!

So look out for more information here soon about how the DM will be taking forward the case for a referendum by supporting the People's Pledge - and promoting a new vision for Britain outside and beyond the confines of EU membership.

People's Pledge campaign for an EU referendum

2011-03-14T01:31:00.005Z

The Daily Mail today gives major coverage to the looming launch of a new organisation called the People's Pledge.

Under the headline, Give us a vote on our future in Europe, the Mail reports that this new cross-party campaign aims to "pile pressure on party leaders and MPs to support a poll that would settle the divisive question of EU membership once and for all."

An online version of the article can be seen on the Daily Mail website here.

The People's Pledge is a unique and potent new initiative, which the DM is very pleased to be supporting. More information about the campaign will follow in the next few days.

Britain still vulnerable to euro crisis

2011-02-08T14:59:00.001Z

by Marc Glendening

British taxpayers risk losing £8 billion if, as many are now predicting, Greece defaults on the EU/IMF loan in which we were forced to participate back in May last year.

Britain has being sucked into the current crisis affecting the eurozone under Article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, which was passed without the democratic consent of the electorate despite a referendum being promised by all political parties.

This article allows the EU Council of Ministers, by qualified majority vote, to provide collective assistance to a member state hit by "natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control...".

However, through a highly elastic and convenient interpretation by the EU elite, the clause is now being used to force countries outside the single currency to bail out those countries that have run into financial trouble.

It is effectively being used by the EU to help itself to billions of pounds of taxpayers' money - even from those countries who have chosen to remain outside the euro - to prop up their fundamentally flawed single currency project.

"Regrettable" billions

Back in November, the House of Lords Treasury spokesman Lord Sassoon described the way Article 122 had been twisted by the EU as "regrettable".

With £8bn on the line, this must surely be a strong contender for the title of understatement of the year!

In reply to a question from Lord Pearson on 22 November, Sassoon said: "It is clearly regrettable that articles of the European Union treaty, such as Article 122, which should have been used for such things as natural disasters, has been enabled to be used for a mechanism in which the UK was committed to be a contributor by the previous Government."

With Portugal, Belgium, Spain and possibly Italy still facing major economic problems, and many now seeing eventual debt default by Greece and Ireland as inevitable, British taxpayers are facing huge potential liabilities.

Government weakness

In a belated bid to shut the stable door and end Britain's financial vulnerability to the euro's flaws, David Cameron in December sought a "political commitment" from EU leaders that Article 122 would no longer be mis-used in this way.

However, the best he could achieve was an exemption for Britain once the new European Stability Mechanism is created via a treaty change - in 2013. Yet there may be plenty of bailouts between now and then!

Should both Portugal and, more seriously, Spain need financial assistance, it is estimated that Britain's liability under Article 122 will be £16 billion and David Cameron has effectively confirmed that his government is completely powerless to limit this.

Criticising his party leader's actions, Douglas Carswell, the Conservative MP for Clacton, said: "This latest failure shows the futility of the government's position. Unless it is willing to challenge the premise of EU membership and the terms on which we signed up, it can never get its way," he said. "The government is utterly impotent."

Referendum needed

The British people never consented to join the euro and yet we find ourselves having to risk billions of pounds to help sustain that dysfunctional system.

This is why we must have a referendum to decide whether or not we want to be bound by Article 122 and all the other provisions of the Lisbon treaty.

The only referendum that makes any sense now is one on whether we want to accept full EU political union or a new relationship based on trade and voluntary ad-hoc co-operation.

----------------------------------------------------------------

written by Marc Glendening

Will the real Wayne David please step forward

2010-11-10T12:47:00.016Z

Before moving on from the debate surrounding recent EU budget negotiations, it's worth taking a moment to scrutinise the quite breathtaking hypocrisy exhibited on the subject by Labour's new shadow Europe minister Wayne David MP.

In various reports about David Cameron's (increasingly dubious) efforts to reign in the EU's ever-expanding budget, Mr David offered quotes suggesting that a "sizeable" rise in the EU budget would be "against the national interest", saying: "I think we should dig our heels in and say that we want a freeze in the European Union [budget]."

Really? That's a turn up for the books.

Contradictions

Because not only did Mr David vote in November 2007 in favour of the European Union Finance Bill that approved the last EU budget deal increasing Britain's contributions by an extraordinary 60% through to 2013.

But the former MEP and leader of the Labour group in the European Parliament also in early 2008 voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty (and against the referendum his party promised voters), which is how Brussels is now attempting to justify the EU's need for yet more billions.

In particular, on 20 February 2008, Mr David voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty's foreign, security and defence policy provisions that authorised the creation of the vastly expensive EU European External Action Service.

This is the new £5.8bn-a-year EU agency headed by the unelected Baroness Catherine Ashton that will be housed in a £10.5 million-a-year building, staffed in Brussels and worldwide by thousands of expensively-salaried EU officials, some of whom will enjoy being ferried about in one of the shiny new bullet-proof limos that will set back Europe's taxpayers £32m.

Regrets?

So for Mr David to turn around now and posture in favour of 'digging in our heels' and freezing Britain's contributions to the EU is all very well, so far as it goes.

But if he wants his apparent conversion to be taken seriously, Mr David first needs to express regret for his poor voting decisions in the past that have ccontributed to the situation Mr Cameron is today having to deal with.

Because if actions speak louder than words, Mr David's very evident past enthusiasm for gifting the EU large amounts of extra cash and voting EU institutions more powers will indicate to most that he's merely playing the sort of low-grade, party-political games that make the public very cynical about politicians and that ultimately only degrade our democracy.

So how about those regrets, Mr David? According to his website, he can be contacted at davidw@parliament.uk. Why not drop him a line and ask him? Especially if you live in his Caerphilly constituency.

Will Cameron yet freeze the EU budget?

2010-10-29T18:52:00.002+01:00

David Cameron's strategy to secure a freeze in the EU budget may be becoming clearer.

It was, of course, never in prospect that all the EU's member governments and institutions would agree to a zero percent increase in the EU's spending during 2011.

Nevermind the cut in funding that is truly justified by the drastic austerity measures being implemented in the EU's member countries and the EU's perpetual failure to safeguard from waste and fraud the public money it is given.

Nevertheless, has Mr Cameron gambled that protracted disagreement over the level of increase may deliver exactly what he wants?

Institutional stand-off

By securing the backing of ten other EU member countries for the position that the rise must not exceed 2.9%, David Cameron has set up a stand-off between the European Council on the one hand and the European 'Parliament' and Commission on the other.

The procedure for agreeing the EU's annual budget is set out in Article 314 of the EU treaty, as usefully highlighted over on the Your Freedom and Our s blog. Skip to paragraph 5 to find the current state of play.

During the forthcoming potential 21 days of 'conciliation', the likely response from the 'Parliament' and Commission to what has occured over the last two will be to propose a figure somewhere between the 5.9% increase they currently want and the 2.9% backed by a blocking minority on the Council.

If no agreement is reached during conciliation, paragraph 8 confirms that the procedure goes right back to the start, with the Commission required to submit a new draft budget.

Freezing stalemate

That there may be no agreement during conciliation seems a real possibility. The EU 'Parliament' in particular is easily pompous enough about its position and role to believe its duty is to 'take on' national governments. And need we really say more about Commission president Jose 'dimension of empire' Barroso?

By demanding billions extra from cash-strapped European countries that will no doubt have to be additionally borrowed before being handed over, these two EU institutions have at least usefully demonstrated the emptiness of their rhetoric about seeking to help Europe recover economically.

The bigger question during conciliation is whether Mr Cameron's group of supportive countries on the European Council will stand firm.

Should this roundabout of negotiations not be resolved in time for the new budget to start in 2011, Article 315 of the treaty confirms that "not more than one twelfth of the budget appropriations for the preceding financial year may be spent each month ..."

In other words - in the absence of a specific concession by the Council that more than one twelfth per month may be spent, which would be unlikely given they will be attempting to pressure the 'Parliament' and Commission into swift acquiescence to their 2.9% deal - the 2010 EU budget continues into next year.

Bingo! That freeze.

Futile games

So is David Cameron gaming the 'Parliament' and Commission with their own procedures in order to achieve what he wants? Time, and the reaction of those institutions, will tell. Ultimately, it matters little.

For all the reasons and more that were well argued by Harry Phibbs in the Daily Mail, even a freeze isn't nearly strong enough action against the EU's financial incompetence and abject waste and the best case scenario of all this is still most likely to be a 2.9% increase.

That would leave Britain still having to stump up an extra £430 million for the EU next year, on top of the £8.3bn (net) we're already committed to handing over, while making big cuts to essential public services at home.

Justify that, Prime Minister.

EU taxation without representation coming your way?

2010-10-27T14:58:00.000+01:00

by Marc Glendening

The European Commission last week revealed that it is pressing ahead with its plans to gain more powers of direct taxation over the citizens of EU member states.

On October 19th it announced (pdf) its desire to be able to levy taxes relating to greenhouse emissions, financial transactions, air transportation, energy or company profits.

The EU desperately needs more cash to help sustain new agencies that will exercise its extended range of powers introduced by the Lisbon treaty.

In addition, the crisis being experienced by the Eurozone countries means Brussels needs to build a much larger treasury so that significant transfers of money can be made to countries such as Greece that fall into difficulty.

We opponents of the idea of a single European currency have always warned that monetary union would necessitate fiscal union. As usual, we were accused of hysterical scaremongering and inventing threats that did not exist by the likes of Peter Mandelson, Chris Huhne and Ken Clarke.

This initial drive for new tax-raising powers follows Herman Van Rompuy's speech on the eve of his non-contested appointment in November 2009 as the organisation's new permanent president, when he declared that one of his main objectives was to enable the Brussels elite to by-pass national governments and come directly to us as individuals for cash.

He said that a good way to get the ball rolling, no doubt because of its potentially populist appeal, would be with a 'green fiscal instrument' though in time other types of tax would come into play.

Van Rompuy's speech was music to the ears of EU-centralists such as Andrew Duff, the Liberal Democrat MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists.

In response to the president's speech he said: “He is a federalist and federalists believe in that approach. We have got to have a reform of the financial system. We have also got to grow the size of the EU budget to reflect the growth of competences that are in the Lisbon treaty, such as foreign and security policy, a common energy policy and climate change measures.”

The EU is frustrated by having to go cap in hand to the governments of those nations that are net donors to its budget, who help sustain the whole edifice.

The realisation among the Brussels elite is that it is going to be very difficult politically in the years ahead to persuade the German, British and Dutch governments - the principal contributors to the budget - to keep squeezing their taxpayers.

Everything would be so much easier for the EU if the Commission, which doesn't face public election, could levy its own taxes without fear for the electoral consequences.

The EU is facing an existential moment: It needs to step up a gear and move towards full fiscal union if the euro is to be saved. The stakes are now very high, both for the EU-centralisers and those of us who seek a Europe of democracies. If the former get the powers and financial resources they seek, the unified, centrally run state they seek will become a reality.

However, achieving these prizes involves the EU elite having to run the massive risk of coming out of the political shadows and making its impirial ambitions more and more apparent to the peoples of Europe.

Until now the very obscurity and tedium-inducing complexity of this parallel system of power has enabled the political classes of the member states to keep transferring new powers to it, away from their own parliamentary systems.

The granting of direct tax-raising powers may prove to be the EU's own Boston Tea Party moment. If the peoples of Europe rally to block such an extraordinary transfer of power and funds it is difficult to envisage how the EU can survive in the long term.

As the old saying goes: 'Be careful for what you wish'.

----------------------------------------------------------------

written by Marc Glendening

Why isn't the EU budget being cut?

2010-10-21T14:05:00.011+01:00

by Marc Glendening

On Wednesday October 13th, 35 MPs defied the coalition government and demanded that Britain's contribution to the EU be cut in real terms at a time when major spending reductions are being planned across the range of public services in Britain.

Ministers said that it would be 'illegal' for our parliament to vote for a cut in the contribution and are instead pressing for a freeze in the amount of money we hand over to a fraud-ridden budget that has not had its books given a clean bill of health by auditors in 15 years.

The European Commission wants its budget to grow by 5.8% next year,
2011-12. Britain is already paying £8.3 billion net, compared to last year's
£6.4 billion above and beyond what we get back currently. In total the gross contribution we have to hand over amounts to £48 million a day.

This year, the Commission has reluctantly settled for a 2.9% rise. The plan is to increase the wages of EU officials by 5.3% and expand the commission's administration costs by an extra 15%.

As Mats Persson of the pressure group Open Europe comments: "People and governments across Europe are fed up with the EU being the only public body protected from spending cuts".

The Council of Ministers wants the Commission to cut its increase for next year back to 2.6%. However, the European Parliament wants to go even further than the Commission and voted on October 20 for a £6.5 billion increase.

For Britain this will mean, if implemented, finding an extra £884 million next year, this being the equivalent of 14,000 doctors, 29,000 nurses, 34,000 police officers or 52,000 soldiers.

The elaborate Brussels 'conciliation procedure' will now kick in to try and arrive at some sort of compromise between the various bodies wanting more money from UK and other European taxpayers.

On top of this, unelected EU tax commissioner Janusz Lewandowski wants to remove Britain's rebate from the EU budget. This is currently worth
£3 billion. It was negotiated by the UK government in the 1980s because British farmers received a much smaller proportion of CAP money compared to their German and French counterparts. Now the Commission wants to reduce our rebate by £2.5 billion next year before phasing it out totally.

Another area of financial attack emanating from Brussels is the way in which we are being forced to contribute to the crisis in the eurozone. The UK was obliged to guarantee £8.6 billion towards the recent bail-out of Greece, about 10% of the total loan package. If the Greeks cannot pay this back, then UK taxpayers will lose their money.

We had to contribute this amount because the Commission utilised article 122 of the Lisbon treaty that allows the Council of Ministers, by qualified majority vote, to impose collective assistance to a member state hit by 'natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control...'.

This article is therefore, through a highly elastic and convenient interpretation by the EU elite, being used to justify forcing countries outside the eurozone to help prop up those within it that run into trouble. As Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, said: "We will defend the euro, whatever it takes".

To cap it all, recently Britain was fined £150 million by the Commission for not flying the EU flag in the vicinity of a number of projects Brussels claims to have 'financed'!

---------------------------------------------------
written by Marc Glendening

New EU mass surveillance project revealed

2010-07-07T13:45:00.003+01:00

by Marc Glendening

Statewatch, the civil liberties body that monitors the EU, has gained access to Council of Ministers Conclusions that reveal that Brussels now wants law enforcement agencies in its member countries to build lists of political activists as part of a 'systematic data collection'.

Those responsible in the member countries for acquiring the information on 'agents of radicalisation' have been sent by the EU a 'data compilation instrument' that includes a list of 70 questions they are requested to answer.

This involves discovering who the targeted activists socialise with, family members, psychological traits, religious affiliation, activities, economic status, and, very revealingly, 'oral comments' - presumably ascertained through phone taps - they have made on political issues (Guardian, June 8, 2010).

Vague definition

What actually constitutes being considered to be an 'agent of radicalisation' is not defined in any degree of detail and leaves open the door to wide categories of people finding themselves of potential interest to EU agencies.

The EU documents refer to 'extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist, anti-globalisation' groups as some of those qualifying for surveillance, but the Democracy Movement will now use Freedom of Information requests within the UK to try and discover what precise criteria those in the UK entrusted with building this database will employ.

Europol, the EU's fledgling FBI equivalent, will pull together the information gathered at the member state level.

Broader authoritarian agenda

This move by the EU to document and keep under surveillance political activists follows on from the establishment of Project Indect.

This European Commission funded and inititated programme is designed to develop a system of automated surveillance monitors that will identify 'abnormal behaviour'.

In addition to CCTV footage, these sensors will comb through web sites, internet discussion forums, file servers and individual computers.

In Britain, York University and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are spearheading the development of this project with £10million of Brussels funding.

Again, there is a failure, or refusal, to actually spell out what constitutes 'abnormal behaviour' and this means that what in a traditional liberal democracy might be considered to be legitimate activity that should be free of state surveillance will, in the context of the EU, be considered appropriate for state intervention.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, has described Project Indect as 'positively chilling'.

EU critics to be targets?

It is perhaps worth recalling in this context that, famously, the Vienna-based EU Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia (since morphed into the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights) once defined opposition to the European single currency as "monetary xenophobia"!

So it is therefore far from utterly inconceivable that those groups and persons who are opposed to European political union could find themselves defined by EU agencies as being nationalist 'agents of radicalism' and participants in 'abnormal behaviour', worthy of having their phones and computers tapped, among other activities.

No democracy

In addition to the dangerously illiberal content of this new EU drive to document and keep tabs on political activists, what is disturbing is the fact that this policy is being executed without any parliamentary or public consultation whatsoever.

Had the commendable Statewatch not somehow managed to see and expose the relevant documents, nobody in this or anyother member country would even be aware this was even taking place.

Welcome to the EU's new, exciting, post-Lisbon, post-democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

written by Marc Glendening

Osborne's credibility cut by EU omission

2010-06-22T18:29:00.005+01:00

Today the chancellor of our new coalition government, George Osborne, presented his 'emergency budget'.

In a bid to resolve the potentially disastrous situation in which one pound in every four he spends is borrowed, Osborne set out a 'tough' budget that will cost people in all walks of life.

The headlines are that VAT will rise to 20%, child benefit will be frozen for three years, there will be a two-year pay freeze for more than 70% of public sector workers and 25% cuts for government departments that aren't ring-fenced.

While spending on health and international aid are the only two areas Mr Osborne admits to ring-fencing, his speeched revealed that there is one more. The European Union.

Many pennies more

In a catastrophic omission for Mr Osborne's credibility as the right person to tackle Britain's debt mountain, no mention was made of any attempt to cut the - now upwardly-revised (since March alone) - £8.3bn (net) that Britain will pay to the EU in this financial year.

An amount that his own Budget documents show (pdf, page 102) will continue at this level every year until 2013, when it is projected to rise still further - to £9.3bn in 2013-14, £10.3bn by 2014-15 and £8.7bn in 2015-16.

So much for Treasury minister Justine Greening's recent claim that there will be "not a penny more" for Brussels. Even under the current deal, her own department's documents project our payments to Brussels spiralling upwards by further billions, totally out of control.

Brussels bubble

Yet it will be the sight of the unaccountable ruling class who inhabit the EU's glass palaces in Brussels continuing to enjoy their lavish salaries, allowances, perks and privileges, immune from belt-tightening while the rest of us get squeezed, that will dismay most.

The effect of George Osborne's apparent unwillingness to tackle the cost of the EU is that we must all pay 20% VAT for years ahead and see spending on areas like education together with the pay of teachers, doctors, police officers, paramedics and many more being cut or frozen to ensure the EU keeps pocketing huge amounts agreed to back in 2005.

Millions of people face paying more tax, or a pay freeze, or will not receive services that they might expect from a government department, while the EU and its multitude of hangers-on - whose activities enjoy very little public support - continue to receive exactly the same level of spending and benefits as before this Budget.

Much of which largess from our government and others is in any case either wasted, mis-spent or, year after year, subject to question by the EU's auditors when they are unable to verify the "legality and regularity" of payments in multi-billion pound areas of EU spending.

What, Mr Osborne, is either 'responsible' or 'fair' about a Budget that meekly tolerates this?

These are the points the Democracy Movement - working together with like-minded organisations such as the TaxPayers' Alliance - will be putting to people up and down the country between now and the full Spending Review that Mr Osborne has announced will be revealed on 20 October.

Preparing propaganda

The only mention that the European Union received during Mr Osborne's speech was in relation to the Treasury's outrageous Euro Preparations Unit, which has been active for years burning millions of pounds of public money putting out pro-euro propaganda.

The chancellor confirmed that Britain would not be joining the euro in this Parliament, so the Unit would be scrapped. A welcome act, of course. But its total cost, even over a decade, probably amounts to not even one week's worth of our current payments into the EU budget.

Urgent EU cuts

George Osborne must act quickly to reverse the damage today's EU omission has done to his credibility.

He can build on today's Budget and save billions more from Britain's debt by joining with like-minded European colleagues - such as the recently elected parties in the Netherlands - to demand that the EU makes cuts to its spending on a similar scale as he, and as many other European governments, are proposing at home.

As Prime Minister David Cameron said earlier this month, in a speech about tackling Britain's "massive deficit" and "growing debt", this is "the most urgent issue facing Britain today".

Tony Blair's 2005 EU budget deal was made in a completely different economic era. That old deal simply cannot continue unquestioned for years more at such a critical time for our attempted recovery. It's not just reasonable, but essential, for our government to demand that EU's financing arrangements through to 2013 and beyond are reopened urgently.

Second EU attack on City looms

2010-06-09T17:09:00.002+01:00

Hot on the heels of the recent EU financial services directive looms a second EU attack on the hedge fund industry - the vast majority of which is based in London.

And presumably our own government, past administrations having handed over their powers to the EU, will once again find themselves too enfeebled to protect this major contributor to much-needed tax revenues.

The Evening Standard reports today that the German and French leaders have teamed up to call for a German-style ban on the practice of short-selling to be extended across the EU.

The shock unilateral move by the German government last month to ban short-selling destabilised markets and sent the values of shares, and the investments that rely on them, plunging.

The move was criticised over the instability it provoked while only being capable of suppressing a reaction to the euro's structural difficulties, rather than resolving the EU project's underlying, fundamental problems.

In a bid to block more financial institutions from betting on the failure of the EU's financial support packages, euro policies and the creditworthiness of euro countries, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have written a letter to Jose Manuel Barroso asking the Commission to examine a proposal for an EU-wide shorting ban covering both shares and sovereign bonds.

The pair have evidently ruled out the alternative of making the EU's actions more convincing to the markets, presumably in tacit admission of what virtually everyone else already realises.

Namely, that nothing the EU can do can solve convincingly the financial problems of various of its members while they remain locked within the fixed-exchange euro system.

The key question for us is this. Perhaps smarting from recent events, is our government going to 'man up', live up to their title, be worthy of the votes that many people so recently bothered to cast, and do what it takes to block this looming new move?

Or will they just allow themselves to be over-ruled and humiliated by the EU yet again?

EU funds directive shows who governs

2010-05-28T16:52:00.004+01:00

Only days into office, our new Con-Lib coalition government has been humbled by those who have actually long been in charge - the European Union.

It appears that the EU cannot be prevented from making a new financial services law that threatens to drive Britain's hedge funds industry offshore and cost us billions in tax revenue.

Quoted in Frankfurt's FAZ newspaper, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made clear the mirage of Britain's influence in Brussels and the state of democracy within the EU when she said: "Unfortunately we have to overrule the UK, but that is possible with a majority."

Given our government can be completely over-ruled by the EU, many would be forgiven for wondering why we bothered so recently to elect a government of any political colour.

It seems it was not to govern.

What election?

Once again we are shown that a majority of ministers from other European governments are in charge and all our new 'leaders' in Downing Street seem to be able to offer in response is shrugged shoulders and mutterings about battles they can't win.

Worse, their response shows no interest in actually seeking to change this anti-democratic EU situation and to regain the power to prevent severe damage being caused to a key British business sector.

How do our politicians hope to restore public faith in our democratic system if they continue to appear in this way to be little more than puppets, unable to control a Brussels regime making damaging laws that both business and government oppose?

Do David Cameron and George Osborne actually want to govern, or do they only want to posture - to occupy lofty positions, but only tinker on the margins while major decisions over how the country is run are made in Brussels by ministers in other governments that no-one here elected?

Media failure

While the response of our new leaders has so far been little more than pathetic and embarrassing, the issue at least reflects accurately the state of national democracy under the EU regime.

Yet, perversely, the EU remains largely unrecognised by the 'Westminster Village' - in which I include political journalists in the mainstream media - as a major contributor to today's lack of public faith in our political system.

Not once during the election campaign did we see or hear mention of how wriggling in the most blatant way out of a clear election promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution - when it returned repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty - undermines trust in election promises being made by Labour or the Liberal Democrats, in particular, this time around.

Not once during the election campaign, despite the amounts concerned overshadowing considerably other points of economic debate, and despite the waste of it being crystal clear, did we see or hear mention of the scale of cash Britain will hand over to the EU this coming financial year - £7.6bn (net).

No candidate was asked to justify this, while economic debate focussed on much lesser amounts.

Naturally, the politicians don't want to admit the extent to which they've marginalised themselves by handing ever more powers to the EU.

But, worse, the media seem complicit in their game that day-to-day government in this country has not become little more than a charade.

Critical cash

Has the print media, in particular, even considered that their falling revenues may to some extent be explained by the fact that political journalism appears to have drifted away from reality, occupying the same bubble as the politicians?

Sure, much news is now obtained online. The rise of the internet is undoubtedly also a factor.

But if it appears that the mainstream print media are failing to hold politicians to account - by failing to puncture their spin and to challenge them with the big questions about their credibility - why then should anyone bother buying a newspaper?

It seems a first step in putting greater pressure on our politicians to seek to govern again may be to pressure our media to burst the bubble of our leaders' increasing powerlessness.

It's a fair bet that for them to do so more robustly than at present may even be in the media's own best financial interest.

Reality check

What Nick Clegg and the rest of our new government must conclude from this early losing power clash with the EU is this.

Electoral reform without rebalancing the EU's powers back in favour of elected governments - as the pre-coalition Conservative manifesto pledged steps towards - would merely be rearranging the deckchairs while democracy, and public faith in our political system, carries on sinking.

So, the EU isn't really an issue?

2010-05-14T15:41:00.002+01:00

by Marc Glendening

During Britain's recent general election campaign we were repeatedly told by the BBC and various media pundits that the EU was not a key issue.

The three party leaders only briefly touched on the issue. There was one really telling moment, however.

When David Cameron outlined in the final TV debate his immigration proposals, Nick Clegg rightly informed him that his plans to stem the flow of migrants was doomed to failure as the EU treaty does not allow a national government to deny citizens of other member countries entry.

Cameron was dumbstruck and had to acknowledge his plans only applied to non-EU citizens.

With the German government claiming that 84% of all its laws, since the Single European Act, have had their origin in directives and regulations emanating from Brussels, it is becoming clear to the British and other European peoples that our elected representatives have little meaningful power.

The Lisbon treaty has only recently been passed and this will add significantly to the percentage of laws in the member countries that are determined centrally in Brussels.

Elections are becoming little more than a form of political beauty contest in Europe and, in some cases, not a very good one at that.

UKIP factor

A little commented upon fact is that the UK Independence party won over 900,000 votes in the general election and in a number of closely contested seats, including Solihull and Grimsby, may well have denied the Tories victory.

Given that it has been calculated that had David Cameron's party only gained another 16,000 votes strategically distributed it would have gained an overall majority, it is perhaps safe to conclude - as we predicted on this blog at the time - that the party's decision to abandon a referendum on the Lisbon treaty cost it outright power.

Bailout cost

While the political dust was still swirling around in the immediate aftermath of our inconclusive election, news emerged that, in his last act as Chancellor, Alistair Darling had agreed to hand over a further £8 billion from the UK taxpayer to the EU as part of the EU-IMF bailout of Greece.

This is on top of the £10 billion contribution we hand over to the EU each year, which is expected to rise yet again following the new round of budget negotiations between the Commission and the member states that will commence shortly.

It will be interesting to see how Nick Clegg's party play this issue, given their fanatical devotion to building an ever more powerful EU and the big cuts the Tories say need to be made early in the lifetime of the new coalition government.

When the Tories announced recently that they intended to cut our relatively small handout to the College of Europe (the institution that trains Brussels bureaucrats) Clegg denounced this and said the contribution should be ring-fenced.

Eurozone member countries are now trying to put together a massive new financial support package estimated to run to €750 billion (£640bn). Some of this will come from the IMF, which Britain also contributes heavily to.

Germany is committed to putting in €123 billion (£104bn) and is facing extra austerity measures at home to pay for the bailout contribution.

This is not going down well with the voters and Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats lost control of North Rhine-Westphalia in the wake of the bailout being announced.

'Beneficial' crisis

While German and other European voters look on in horror at the scale of the unfolding Greek euro crisis and the implications for those trapped in the eurozone, the European political class are needless to say seeking to use the crisis to centralise even more power in Brussels.

"The Greek case is a potential turning point for the eurozone," says Olli Rehn, the commissioner for economic and monetary affairs.

"If Greece fails and we fail, this will do serious and maybe permanent damage to the credibility of the European Union. The euro is not only a monetary arrangement, but a core political project of the European Union … In that sense, we are at a crossroads."

The Commission is now putting together stricter rules for member states, including "budgetary surveillance" and "reinforced economic policy co-ordination".

Of course, the EU is of no relevance to British politics.

------------------------------------------------------------------

written by Marc Glendening

Greece's path out of the eurozone

2010-04-29T19:51:00.007+01:00

Never quite believed it until today. The markets can see it. The EU seemingly hasn't quite accepted it. But Greece is on a path heading out of the eurozone.

The prospects for the EU's embattled currency have worsened considerably in the last couple of days. First Greek debt was further downgraded to junk status and then it emerged that its problems are causing a loss of debt confidence for other eurozone countries.

Both Portugal and Spain have suffered new credit status downgrades and the OECD secretary general went so far as to describe the potential for contagion as 'like ebola'.

Markets and politicians once thought that the banks were too big to fail. Now it seems they are starting to realise that they have made the same false assumption about the euro.

Fears confirmed

The continued testing of the sustainability of Greek debt shows how market suspicions have lingered that the much-promised EU-IMF bailout was all for show, announced in the hope that real action would not be needed.

Those suspicions have only been reinforced by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, yesterday making it clear that, despite the precarious situation, discussions about the Greek cash injection are going to continue for several days yet.

One of the EU's plethora of 'presidents', Herman van Rompuy, perhaps feeling a little neglected from this process, has even been talking about an 'emergency' summit. But not until 10 May.

Standard, slow-moving EU - far too slow for the 21st century world.

The empty reality behind the EU's currency-without-government is nothing new to EU-watchers, but the real surprise is that the markets have bought the euro charade for so long.

Bailout blocks

That the markets have had little faith in the EU's words about backing Greece and have continued to test the situation can be no surprise, given the number of obstacles in the path to Greece avoiding a debt spiral and default.

First, for the eurozone countries to approve their €30bn share of the bailout (the further €15bn coming from the IMF) will involve many already themselves struggling with high debt, sluggish economies and bad-tempered public stumping up large sums for Greece.

This will only worsen others' debt problems, hamper economic recovery and cause further public unrest.

Second, as many are warning, the initial €45bn may buy Greece time but that amount will be far from the end of the financial support the country will need. Is there an appetite elsewhere in the eurozone for further bailouts and larger amounts in the future?

Third, even if the EU - propped up by the IMF - finally agrees to hand over the cash, the accompanying demands for further drastic cutbacks in public spending in Greece are likely to be so stringent that an already distressed and protesting public will not accept them.

Greece's umbrella private sector union, the GEEE, has already called a general strike for 5 May to protest against the "neoliberal extortion and demands [of the EU and IMF] to flatten the financial and job rights of workers" and other major unions have agreed to join in.

Fourth, there seems to be a clear case that the eurozone cash injection for Greece would breach the 'no bailout' clause in the EU treaty - a legal situation that a group of German professors are threatening to test, if the bailout is approved.

An injunction from the German Constitutional Court would freeze all aid for Greece while the case is pending, which may take weeks or months.

Finally, in any case, is Greece's total debt burden now too high for cash injections and such 'internal deflation' methods to restore competitiveness? Many are coming around to the view that a debt spiral is already underway and billions injected now would be just throwing money away.

Final shot

Only the fact that French and German banks are up to their eyes in Greek debt suggests the EU's bailout efforts will continue to the bitter end.

The EU's final shot at calming the market may involve offering far larger amounts than the present €45bn - amounts that may be seen by the markets as offering a more realistic long-term solution for Greece.

But in the absence of major IMF involvement - a situation against which the EU has a pompous, ideological objection - doubts will still linger about the capacity of eurozone countries to afford, and to deliver politically, such levels of cash.

Greek choice

What becomes clear from looking at the questions and obstacles above is that Greece is out of options other than default or voluntary, Uruguay-style (pdf) debt 'reprofiling'.

The key question for the euro comes in the implications of this outcome for economically connected countries, especially those sharing a currency.

Ireland has already felt the implications of currency connection, seeing their borrowing costs rise so far by €3m a year as a result of the Greek crisis. Greece is already dragging the eurozone down with it.

Worse, unless there is a clear isolation of Greece from the eurozone, it's hard to see how a restructuring of Greek debt will avoid knocking the confidence of buyers of other eurozone government bonds, provoking even bigger crises in other already finely balanced economies like Spain and Portugal.

The question that the EU and IMF may be struggling with, that is taking them so long to resolve, may be: might the billions of Greek aid on the table be better spent backing a 'new drachma' and curbing inflation - giving the country's economy a real competitive boost - than trying fruitlessly to ward off an inevitable debt default?

Leaders' stale old debate on the EU

2010-04-23T06:36:00.000+01:00

The part of last night's second TV debate between the party leaders devoted to discussing the European Union proved mostly a stale rehash of the same old inaccurate lines - particularly from Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown.

As ever, they moved to shut down any focussed debate about the realities of the EU with a combination of smearing David Cameron's choice of political allies and of asserting that legitimate questions about the extent of the EU's powers indicated a wish not even to work with other European countries at all.

As if the only possible form of co-operation between countries is an EU-style transfer of political decisions to unaccountable, central institutions.

It's a low grade tactic that's deployed time and again by the EU lobby to subvert an honest debate about the true goals of the EU and the nature of Britain's relationship with it.

Everyone agrees with the need for co-operation between countries on the issues that affect us all. But the EU is entirely about political integration and the real debate is about how far it has gone, whether centralised decisions in EU institutions is a practical or democratic way to govern a group of very diverse countries, and what should be done about this problem.

But neither Clegg nor Brown want to engage in that debate because they know their unswerving ideological support for giving the EU ever more powers at the expense of our democratic national institutions is both unjustifiable and completely out of step with public opinion.

Why else would the pair of them have expended so much political energy wriggling out of promises made at the last election to give people a referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty if not to prevent the public blocking their plans? They knew we would, given the chance.

From their point of view, any debate about the EU must be quickly diverted and frustrated by the setting up of false dichotomies, distractions and plain old name-calling.

Brown's 'Big Lie'

Typifying this approach, Gordon Brown resorted to his favourite Big Lie on the issue, asserting that 3 million jobs depend on Britain's 'membership of the EU'.

In reality, the 3 million jobs figure comes from a National Institute for Economic and Social Research study into the impact of UK-EU trade.

But given that trade with European countries isn't dependent solely on EU membership, and trade would clearly not halt if we changed our relationship with the EU, it is not honest to suggest as Brown did that 3 million jobs would be at risk.

Clegg chimed in with the idea that you can only change the rules of clubs you're a member of by 'getting stuck in'.

But the truth is neither he nor Brown intend to 'get stuck in' at all, as their behaviour over the Lisbon Treaty showed. If Brown truly tried to change the EU's rules or goals during the negotiations that resulted in the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, you wouldn't notice it from the long list of extra EU powers to which he agreed.

Lib Dem dishonesty

Clegg also tried to distract from how he broke his promise made at the last election to support a referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, by saying he would give people a say on the 'real question' - whether we should be 'in or out' of the EU.

However a glance at the Lib Dem manifesto confirms that the pledge is only for an in or out referendum "the next time the British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between Britain and the EU".

Lib Dem 'small print' that provokes several further questions about the pledge's value.

First, what is a "fundamental change" if the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty wasn't and, given how the Lib Dems wriggled out of their last EU referendum promise on the grounds that even the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty did not present such a change, what's the betting they will wriggle out of this new referendum pledge by claiming exactly the same about the next EU treaty?

Second, why is it necessary to wait until the next treaty change is proposed before holding this 'in or out' referendum? In practice, we could terminate our EU relationship at any time we choose. So might this stipulation be there because, having battled for eight years against French, Dutch and Irish public opposition to get the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty ratified, there's little prospect of another EU treaty for many years to come. And, consequently, such a stipulation means little prospect of the Lib Dems having to deliver such a referendum?

Far from Clegg's glib TV comments, reading the small print of the new Lib Dem referendum promise reveals all. They won't pledge to hold that 'in / out' referendum immediately, because they clearly still want to avoid giving people any say on the EU at all.

Cameron's contribution

The responses of both Clegg and Brown to questions on the EU issue during the TV debate can each respectively be described in one word: dishonest and distraction.

In contrast, David Cameron's recognition that powers should not be transferred to the EU without people being asked directly, and his proposals to get powers back from the EU, have merit as a start to securing the change we need.

But he clearly wasn't able to resist a bit of stale mantra-reciting of his own.

A disappointment from among his own comments was the re-emergence of the lame old Tory 'In Europe, not run by Europe' line. It's a ridiculous idea because, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the way the EU works will know, you can't be in the EU but not run by the EU.

Steadily taking over the running its member states, in the place of national governments, is the EU's fundamental mission and goal.

Prize, however, for most ridiculous line of the night must still go to Nick Clegg, who probably thought he was being clever in defending the EU by saying that "the weather doesn't stop at the cliffs of Dover".

In fact, it rebounded on him quite badly by sounding so narrow-minded. Of course, the weather doesn't stop at the Polish border or Mediterranean coast either.

Final judgement

What was clear overall was that only one leader on the TV stage - David Cameron - was criticising the extent of the EU's powers and proposing to seek some reversal of that situation.

Whereas both Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown were defending the undemocratic status quo and showed no indication they wouldn't sign even more powers over to the EU given the chance in office.

But the most fundamental problem with the TV event was the short amount of time devoted to debating an organisation that membership of which will next year alone cost Britain £7.6 billion (net), that even so hasn't been able to get its accounts fully approved by auditors for 14 years in a row, and which according to German government estimates may now be behind as many as 80% of our new laws.

Is that all the high profile time that such an important issue gets during this election campaign, and how can its many and full implications possibly be explored in such a short period of discussion?

In fact, the EU problem deserves a 90 minute leaders' debate all of its own.

Dutch EU cuts pledge leads way for Tories

2010-04-21T18:55:00.002+01:00

All the major parties competing in the forthcoming Dutch general election are supporting a multi-billion euro cut to the country's payments into the EU budget.

Ahead of the Dutch vote on 9 June, both the likely fourth-placed VVD and front-running CDA parties propose bringing the contribution paid by the Netherlands into line per capita with those of France and Germany.

According to EUobserver, the result would be Dutch payments to the EU being cut by around half from their current annual level of €5.3 billion (£4.6bn).

Other Dutch election front-runners, the centre-left PvdA and the Freedom Party, also support a cut.

UK contribution

According to the recent Budget documents, last year Britain handed over £6.4bn (net) to the EU and in the coming year, at a time when our next government is likely to be cutting public services towards reigning in our deficit, that net amount is due to rise to £7.6bn.

This is even more than the £6bn involved in the proposed rise in National Insurance contributions that caused such a huge fuss at the start of this general election campaign.

And so far other 'big ticket' items of government spending like the Trident nuclear deterrent and the ID cards scheme have all featured in debates about cuts.

But at no point on the campaign trail has a politician or journalist questioned the scale of money Britain will next year alone flush on the EU and what we're getting for those billions.

This is especially odd since auditors have not been able to fully approve the EU's accounts for an unjustifiable 14 years in a row and there are regular reports detailing extraordinary levels of waste and fraud.

So not even auditors can fully explain where the billions countries pay to the EU actually end up.

Vote winner

The move by leading Dutch political parties to cut the amount of public money the country wastes on the EU has proved immensely popular, with a survey showing 63% of voters support the idea.

So not just would Britain be far from alone or isolated in Europe in demanding a cut to the amount of public money the EU consumes, but the news also shows that - for the British party that made a similar pledge - the policy is likely to be a big vote-winner.

Not surprising, since such a move would show that party to be serious about the tricky task of tackling national debt levels by chopping waste and preserving key public services.

Ahead of tomorrow's 'foreign affairs' TV debate between the party leaders, during which David Cameron must produce some striking ideas to grab support and win back lost ground, now is the perfect time for the Conservatives to champion EU cuts.

Lib Dems guilty of major breach of trust

2010-04-14T13:25:00.007+01:00

For Nick Clegg to attempt today to don the mantle of trust and honesty in British politics is the most laughable idea that has yet been put forward during this election campaign.

This man seems to think he can say one thing and be believed, despite having so recently and so conspicuously behaved in a completely different way.

The dangerous game he is playing with such a strategy is that anyone with a memory will see that he is trying to treat voters like fools and, in doing so, only discrediting himself.

Dishonesty

At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats promised to support a referendum on the EU Constitution. "Ratification", they said in their 2005 manifesto, "must be subject to a referendum of the British people."

But when, in March 2008, the opportunity came to vote in the House of Commons in support such a referendum - the EU Constitution having been revived and re-named as the Lisbon Treaty - Nick Clegg instructed his party to abstain.

Despite the influential House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee - whose job it is to scrutinise EU legislation on behalf of MPs - confirming that the Lisbon Treaty was "substantially equivalent" to the EU Constitution, Nick Clegg and other leading Lib Dems conducted a charade claiming that the two documents were completely different.

The chairman of that committee, Labour MP Michael Connarty, said during a debate in the House of Commons: "Every provision of the Constitutional Treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Reform Treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position."

This view was backed up by a second cross-party group of MPs - the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee - which concluded that "there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied."

And at the time there was a cacophony of other European leaders claiming that the EU Constitution had been preserved in all but name.

They said it

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, chief architect of the original EU Constitution, writing in Le Monde, said of the Lisbon Treaty: "Looking at the content, the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty … are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties ... Above all, it is to avoid having referendum thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed."

Hans-Gert Poettering, then president of the European 'parliament', said in a letter to M. Giscard d'Estaing: "I had the feeling that the voice of the European Parliament had been heard and that the essentials had been saved, even if we had to give up calling it 'a European Constitution' ... "

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part… We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state, like the flag and the national anthem."

Jose Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, said: "A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties"

Bertie Ahern, then Irish PM, said: "They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there."

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, confirmed: "The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left."

Flip-flopping

Either the Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems thought they knew better than all these European leaders and, somehow, believed that the Lisbon Treaty was in fact 'completely different'.

Or, blinkered by their evident long-term fanaticism for passing ever more powers from our elected parliament to the European Union, they knew the truth but set out to deceive the public and deny us the say we had been promised.

Worse, having abstained in the House of Commons to ensure the treaty passed, the Lib Dems then voted against a referendum in the House of Lords - flip-flopping to vote whichever way it took to ensure the anti-democratic treaty became law without people being given the say we were promised at the last election.

Deceit

The whole process of how the EU Constitution was revived after the French and Dutch 'no' votes and re-presented in order to avoid further public votes was a blatant deceit, endorsed by Gordon Brown and in which the Liberal Democrats - led by Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey - actively participated.

Clegg and many in his party behaved in a deeply hypocritical and dishonest way, saying one thing and doing another.

They betrayed promises given at the last election and such behaviour should not be rewarded with votes at this election if we are to have a chance of achieving in the future the quality of democracy that we deserve.

Euro nears IMF-backed bailout over Greek debt

2010-04-12T07:56:00.003+01:00

The EU's decade-old single currency experiment faces failure as early as this week, as Greece's debt crisis becomes critical.

In a new bid to shore up investor confidence, eurozone countries together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over the weekend agreed a £26bn (€30bn) package of loans to be made available to Greece at a below-market interest rate of 5%.

The need for greater clarity on a safety net for the financially embattled country rose on Thursday as the interest rate on Greek government debt hit a new high of 7.5%.

On Friday credit rating agency Fitch added to the pressure by further downgrading the country's creditworthiness status to a level that, should other major agencies follow, would prevent large institutional investors from buying Greek government bonds.

Greece is currently faced with debts of nearly £267bn (€300bn) - 12.7% of GDP. As its currency cannot fall in value to increase the country's competitiveness, its recovery plan involves further heavy borrowing on the bond markets and a punishing programme of public spending cuts plus higher taxes.

However last week's double blow made it increasingly unfeasible that the country would be able to borrow its way out of its economic problems.

IMF props euro

According to the Daily Telegraph, the amount each eurozone country will be expected to contribute to the bailout will be in proportion to the amount each puts into the European Central Bank.

The effect will be to drag other already highly indebted eurozone countries like Ireland, Spain and Portugal - all currently imposing their own harsh austerity measures - further into difficulties.

The only barrier to money being handed over to Greece is now the unanimous agreement of all eurozone member countries.

However, the contribution the IMF will make to the package is not yet clear. Some say the IMF will "co-financed" the deal - others that the IMF will provide an additional "top-up" loan, should it be required.

But in any arrangement, IMF intervention to prop up the financial integrity of the eurozone will signal the ultimate failure of the EU's monetary union project.

Public response

The extra burden of funding the Greek bailout on their own economic recovery is unlikely to be received warmly by the public in many eurozone countries.

To calm public opinion over the cost of a potential bailout, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was forced to insist that any loans made to Greece must be at a market rate - a caveat that has been thwarted.

Yet, as the biggest contributor to the ECB, Germany will also have to stump up the lion's share of the bailout funds.

Critical sale

As earlier talk about a financial safety net for Greece failed to calm the markets' fears, the EU will be hoping that this fleshed-out deal will boost confidence ahead of a new bond sale by the Greek government.

This week's sale will be a critical indicator as to whether investors are sufficiently reassured about the safety of Greek debt or whether they will continue to test levels of commitment to providing the country with financial support.

Should the sale not succeed, the question will fast become; just how many billions are the IMF and the eurozone's other member countries willing to splash to prop up the fundamentally misconceived euro project?

Electoral credibility depends on pledging EU cuts too

2010-04-09T07:46:00.004+01:00

Recent reports have warned that Britain faces losing its triple-A credit rating unless 'strong' action is taken after the election to cut levels of public debt.

A fortnight ago, the ratings agency Fitch said it was "uncomfortable with the fiscal adjustment path set out by UK authorities" and called for "more credible and stronger fiscal consolidation plans during 2010".

Fellow agency Moody's, meanwhile, spoke out to say that Britain had moved "substantially" closer to losing its AAA status and, at the end of March, Standard & Poors declared that the level of government debt may become "incompatible with an 'AAA' rating".

Most recently, one of the world's most powerful investment houses gave notice that Britain's AAA credit rating could be lost within a year.

The Independent reported that Scott Mather, the head of global portfolio management at the world's largest bond investor - Pacific Investment Management Co (Pimco) - said, "Miracles are needed in the next six months in order to keep economic growth in the developed world."

Looming debt trap

Alarm bells should be ringing loudly. Britain's AAA credit rating isn't merely a status symbol. Its loss would label Britain as a riskier lending prospect and, as a result, the cost of national borrowing would rise.

And when borrowing this year alone is forecast to hit £167bn, a higher interest bill could spark a spiral of higher taxes and faltering growth that could prove fatal for financial stability and prosperity.

For all the media circus of the election campaign, we are being asked to elect politicians who will have to walk a financial tightrope over that debt trap.

And so far none of them seem to be taking the problem seriously enough to be up to the job.

Major cuts to public spending - very likely public services too - will be needed. That much is being said.

But to decide which party has the credibility to govern and deserves our vote, we must be told where their axes will fall.

State the obvious

One particular point is already clear to many. We can no longer afford to splash multi-billion pound sums every year on propping up the European Union's wasteful activities.

So far, much heat and argument has been generated about the £6bn at stake over the proposed rise in National Insurance contributions.

But where is the debate about the equally substantial £6.4 billion (net) the EU cost us last year - 'taken out of the economy', if you subscribe to Gordon Brown's own rhetoric. Handed over to an organisation that hasn't had its accounts fully signed off by auditors for an unjustifiable 14 years in a row.

Surely a large and much clearer example of waste than almost any other element of government spending? But which journalist has asked Gordon Brown or David Cameron to either justify or cut this?

More relevantly, what will either party do to cut the £7.6bn that recent Budget documents show the EU will cost our new government over the year ahead?

Time must be called on where that money ends up; MEP junkets to the Canary Islands, sponsorship of dubious cultural projects, subsidised skiing holidays for the families of EU officials and much more waste.

Reality check

These are serious times and even enthusiasts in principle for the European Union must recognise that continued provision of many valued public services and even the stability of the economy are today at such grave risk that funding the grand ideals but wasteful reality of today's EU is a luxury that Britain can no longer afford.

Maybe now would in fact be a good time to discuss whether whole EU institutions which serve no coherent purpose, like the European Parliament - merely existing to provide a thin veneer of democratic respectability to the EU structure - should face the axe.

Imagine the savings! No more MEPs to pamper, grand buildings and facilities to maintain or that monthly circus back and forward to Strasbourg. No more six-figure salaries, expenses, travel allowances or multitude of other perks that - according to think tank Open Europe - cost us £1.8 million a year for each MEP.

A recent Daily Express report puts the figure as heading up to £2.1 million for each of the EU's 736 MEPs, nevermind the legions of support staff.

Really, would we miss MEPs? With our economy in dire straits, is it really such a hard decision to cut that all away, rather than slash much more valued public services?

In any case, for national ministers to get together periodically to discuss how to co-operate on the issues that affect us all, it isn't fundamentally necessary for the EU to be as politically centralised or have such a massive central budget as it wields today.

Wealth redistribution

Superstate ideology has long overtaken necessity. The EU has expanded way beyond its original purpose to the extent that its institutions and policies are now swallowing up far too much of Europe's financial resources.

Now these resources have become so critically scarce, they absolutely must be redirected - spent on the ground around Europe supporting economic recovery, rather than on glass palaces full of extra layers of lawmakers in Brussels.

Superstate enthusiasts, of course, like to downplay the EU's massive £116 billion budget by comparing it to the even bigger figure of the continent's total GDP. They conjure up an ocean to try to make a sea of money look like a drop. It's the oldest political trick in the book and, by now, surely the lamest.

So who in this election will show in the weeks ahead that they are serious about protecting public services, limiting the burden of taxes, and combatting obvious financial waste - by making clear that the £7.6bn ear-marked for the EU in the coming year will be the first piece of public spending under their axe?

Now double standards on democracy

2010-04-08T07:30:00.000+01:00

Suddenly, Gordon Brown is a convert to holding referendums.

In 1997, we were promised a referendum on the euro, should the government ever decide to recommend membership.

There was much talk of '5 economic tests', but most could see that the real reason the vote was never held was that, contrary to the government view, people would have voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the pound.

In 2005, we were promised a referendum on the EU Constitution.

But when, having been rejected by the French and Dutch peoples in their own public votes, it was renamed as the Lisbon Treaty - "substantially equivalent" to the EU Constitution, according to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee - the government nevertheless played out a charade that it was a completely different document and shamefully wriggled out of their election promise.

Here in 2010, another referendum 'promise' is now being dangled before us by the same people who have repeatedly failed to deliver such promises in the past.

In a speech to Centre Point yesterday, Brown proposed a public vote on reform of the electoral system for the House of Commons and on changing the House of Lords to make it elected.

Necessary changes, you may think. But why does such a domestic rearrangement warrant a referendum if transferring the actual decision-making powers of those institutions to external bodies beyond meaningful democratic control apparently doesn't?

Brown's double standards are exposed once again.

As a result of his plans, "Britain’s democratic future", he said, "will not belong to any politician or party. It will be up to the people."

Mere months after handing over a range of new decision-making to EU institutions and denying any of us the say on that fundamental shift of power that he promised us at the last election.

Actions, not words. Brown has already shown very clearly his real attitude to democracy.

There has indeed "been a fundamental rupture in the bond of trust between those who serve, and those who they are sworn to serve."

Gordon Brown's problem is that he himself has acted so shamefully, and so conspicuously, to diminish our democracy that it is now far too late for him to hope to regain that trust.

In truth, those who act to degrade democracy deserve only to lose their position within in.

Brown's double standards on jobs and public spending

2010-04-07T11:41:00.012+01:00

It's day two of the general election campaign and the usual suspects are already trying to take voters for fools.

Business secretary Peter Mandelson was first on the stump this morning, making a speech to the Foreign Press Association.

Mandelson, a powerful yet unelected government minister, seems to enjoy inexplicable credibility from the media - even when talking about trust and honesty in politics. Can the media already have forgotten how Mandelson's own actions twice previously caused him to be sacked from the cabinet?

His latest argument about an opposition party being too 'inexperienced' for government is nothing more than an argument that government must never change - that only the experienced should govern. An argument against democracy itself.

Admittedly, not an entirely unexpected point of view, coming from someone known for his enthusiasm for the European Union. His favouritism for technocracy over democracy has long been clear.

But sadly the media seem to be letting the public down by reporting such anti-democratic sentiments from a senior government minister completely uncritically.

Brazen Clegg

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg also joined the fray early in the day, to claim that this election 'isn't a two horse race'. Despite presumably knowing what the rest of us do - that in reality, unlike Gordon Brown and David Cameron, he is not likely to become Prime Minister.

A much more remarkable claim, however, was his assertion that only the Lib Dems are untainted by corruption and can therefore restore trust in politics.

Firstly it's plainly clear that, like the other parties, Lib Dem MPs were also caught up in the expenses scandal and had to apologise and pay back misclaimed expenses.

But Clegg's claims about trust are especially brazen, given it assumes people have such short memories that we will already have forgotten how he led his party to break a clear 2005 election promise to support a referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty.

Worse, during that process, Clegg engaged in precisely the dodgy backroom deals he accuses the other parties of employing to ensure that his party quietly voted whichever way it took at each stage of the Lisbon Treaty's progress through Parliament - abstaining in the Commons and voting against a referendum in the Lords - to prevent people being given a say on something as important as who decides new laws.

Hardly very trustworthy, or democratic. So who does Clegg really think he's fooling with his 'holier than thou' rhetoric? In reality, such claims just serve to make himself look something of a joker and badly out of touch.

Commenting on the euro today, Clegg also reinforced his party's enthusiasm for handing power over to the EU.

The Lib Dem leader admitted that "we think there is a case for, a long-term case for, considering entry into the euro, which needs to be done with a referendum" but admitted that "eurozone interest rates over the last few years would have been wrong for Britain".

In revealing that he believes we should ultimately join the euro while admitting eurozone interest rates can be wrong for our economy, Clegg displays how his EU-statist ideology trumps the economic stability and prosperity on which many jobs depend. Hardly the best bid for a leadership position in our democracy!

Certainly, given his low grade behaviour over the Lisbon Treaty, it would be a brave person indeed who took seriously his purported commitment to holding a referendum before signing Britain up to the euro.

Brown's £6bn gaffe

At Prime Minister's Questions, a major theme was the government's proposed increase in National Insurance, versus the Conservatives' plans to ditch that increase.

Gordon Brown banged on repeatedly about the dangers of "taking £6bn out of the economy" that the NI increase will raise.

As the BBC reports, Brown said "Take six billion out of the economy now and there is more unemployment, more businesses go under and there is less growth."

"Thousands of jobs would then go", Brown lectured.

Yet this is the man who, last year, despite our growing deficit and massive borrowing, was quite happy to take £6.4bn out of the economy and hand it over to the European Union.

This is an institution about which there are regular reports of financial waste and fraud on a grand scale, and whose accounts have not been fully approved by auditors for an unjustifiable 14 years in a row.

According to the recent Budget documents, next year, if Brown remains Prime Minister, at the same time as he is slashing public services, his plan is to increase our cash payments to the EU to a scandalous £7.6bn net.

So, once again please for the record, Mr Brown. How many thousand jobs has taking such sums "out of the economy" and wasting them on the EU already cost?

Confessions on the Lisbon Treaty - No.1

2009-12-03T14:38:00.008Z

Unelected 'quango queen' Baroness Ashton, speaking to the European Parliament on
2 December 2009 about her new role as EU 'High Representative for Foreign Affairs':

"This is brand new. I do not have an office, I do not have a Cabinet, I do not have a team. I inherited a blank piece of paper and at the moment I have written one or two small things on it."

Baroness Ashton speaking in the House of Lords on 22 April 2008, when responsible for guiding through the Lisbon Treaty:

"The proposal is that we have a high representative who becomes the vice-president of the Commission with very specific functions. That is a defined role within the treaty which is vested in one person." (hat tip Open Europe)

Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, the people who pushed it through Parliament are starting to contradict themselves as the truth inevitably emerges from behind the misleading claims they made at the time.

This treaty, and the actions now taken under it, have no democratic legitimacy.

No EU referendum? No majority.

2009-11-23T12:30:00.009Z

UPDATE - 1 December 2009: A new poll in today's Independent further confirms the trend in public opinion against the Tories, since David Cameron's statement confirming he will not hold an EU referendum.

As the trend is enough to bring about a hung parliament, it's time for Mr Cameron to decide whether or not he wants to govern - and correct the EU referendum mistake that has triggered this downward spiral in public support.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A new poll published in yesterday's Observer has further stoked speculation that a recent reverse in public support for the Conservatives may bring about a hung parliament at the next general election.

Whereas last month's Ipsos-Mori poll saw a 7% jump in the Conservative rating, this month's results - following the announcement of David Cameron's new EU policy - shows a stark reverse.

The poll shows Tory support down by 6% and Labour up 5%.

A failure of either of the two main parties to win a working majority would put the EU-fanatical Liberal Democrats into a position of power to dictate policy in return for helping one or another govern.

Any deal with the Conservatives would very likely involve the chopping of EU-confrontational ideas like a UK Sovereignty Bill and the return of certain powers from the EU that David Cameron recently outlined.

Trust test failed

The Conservative party and its supporters would be foolish if they failed to notice how renewed predictions of a hung Parliament have started after David Cameron not only ditched a very public "cast iron guarantee" of a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but contradicted his own stated principles by failing to pledge any replacement EU referendum at all.

Whatever technical arguments can be made in justification of his updated stance following the removal of the final hurdles blocking the Lisbon Treaty's ratification, Cameron's new policy totally fails the trust test.

Somehow, the Westminster Village consistently fails to recognise that this is the most damaging test of all to fail.

A large proportion of people wanted a say on the scale of the EU's powers and now the Tories have become just like the other parties in preventing us having one.

That's the supremely damaging message that will have resonated most strongly from Cameron's recent statement.

In a bizarre move for a party that at best can hope to win a small majority at the next general election, the significant support that comes with an EU referendum was just thrown away and no striking attempt was made to hold onto it.

New referendum

The impact is now being seen in the polls. Predictably, the Conservatives are falling back into the low levels of trust and public support the other two parties have experienced since their own EU promise-breaking episodes.

But this emerging danger for Conservative prospects at the next general election can still be nipped in the bud - by a new EU referendum pledge.

But it had better come quickly, before momentum builds further in the wrong direction and it becomes impossible for Cameron to prevent near-triumph turning into tragedy.

Tories take poll hit after dropping EU referendum

2009-11-10T17:33:00.006Z

The first evidence that David Cameron's abandonment of his pledge to hold an EU referendum will hit the Tories electorally is provided by the latest Populus opinion poll, published in The Times today.

The poll, taken over the weekend, shows the Conservatives have registered a fall in their support, dropping to 39% - reportedly "at the lower end of their recent range".

Meanwhile UKIP have seen a striking gain, going up from 2.3 to 4.2%. According to the paper, excluding the two months around the recent EU parliament elections, this is "the highest level since 2005."

In another bad sign for David Cameron, figures for likelihood to vote among Tory voters also fell.

This reinforces recent reports and evidence on Tory grass-roots sites like ConservativeHome that the lack of a referendum pledge in David Cameron's recent EU statement is causing hassle for candidates, demoralising the party's activists and driving away potential voters.

Early referendum

When questioned specifically on the referendum issue, the poll shows that 46% said they thought that there "should be a referendum early in the next Parliament on the general issue of Britain's relations with the EU".

A figure of 48% are inaccurately reported as "backing the Cameron line", holding the view that "it would be pointless to have a referendum on Europe unless specific further changes in Britain’s relations with the EU were being proposed."

However, David Cameron is proposing "specific further changes" in Britain's relationship with the EU, yet is not offering a referendum. So, contrary to the report, these people are not backing David Cameron's position but should be taken as also supporting a vote.

In a worrying sign for the party of re-emerging splits on the EU issue, 59% of Tory voters said they still wanted an "early" EU referendum of some kind.

Hung parliament

Peter Riddell comments that if the Conservatives were to win approximately a 10% greater share of the vote than Labour - as shown by current poll ratings - it is uncertain that the Tories would win an absolute majority in the next House of Commons.

Because of the scale of the past three Tory defeats, the party still has a mountain to climb in terms of the seats they will need to win any kind of absolute majority in the next Parliament.

It simply can't afford to throw away support that could make a win-or-lose difference in countless constituencies.

Second thoughts

While it doesn't in itself represent a wholescale shift in opinion, this poll should nevertheless set off alarm bells within the Conservative Party as to whether dropping any kind of EU referendum pledge was a big mistake.

It would be no surprise to us if many thousands of voters are now be thinking: if David Cameron won't trust us enough to let us decide where ultimate governing power should lie, why should we trust him enough to make him our Prime Minister?

While the lack of a referendum commitment may not spark a downward spiral in the polls for the Conservatives, in diminishing trust among a small but statistically significant number of voters in each constituency, it is likely to have installed a glass ceiling of support through which David Cameron will now find it impossible to break.

Could David Cameron's refusal to replace his Lisbon referendum pledge with a commitment to giving people a say on his new EU policy have just cost him a majority government?

No referendum, no trust

2009-11-04T18:29:00.009Z

Those hoping for a sign that David Cameron is serious about changing Britain's relationship with the EU will be disappointed by today's statement.

Perhaps not so much over its proposals for a confrontational 'Sovereignty Bill' or plans to take back control over some policy areas from the EU.

But certainly over his unwillingness to consult people in a new referendum, and the worrying signals that sends out about the strength of his commitment to securing those changes.

New guarantees

In a speech this afternoon, the Conservative leader set out a new set of policies on the EU, after the final barriers were removed from the path of the Lisbon Treaty into law. These include:

- amending the European Communities Act 1972 to install a 'referendum lock', prohibiting any further treaty transferring power to the EU becoming law without approval by referendum.

- a 'Sovereignty Bill' to "make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament". Such a move would put UK law in direct contravention of Declaration 17 attached to the Lisbon Treaty, not to mention ECJ case law, which asserts the EU's legal primacy over its member countries.

This is what led recently to concern in Brussels over a similar assertion made by the German Constitutional Court.

- opposition to the 'ratchet clauses' within the Lisbon Treaty allowing further transfers of power to the EU without the need for a new Treaty. Less significantly, Cameron pledged to "change the law so that any use of a ratchet clause by a future government would require approval by Parliament." But since a government by definition commands a majority in Parliament, such approval would hardly be such a struggle to secure.

The more significant point here was Cameron's statement "We do not believe that any of these so-called ratchet clauses should be used to hand over more powers from Britain to the EU."

- opt-outs from parts of EU social and employment legislation, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and restricting the EU's role in criminal justice. Trying to take back any powers from the EU will cause interesting upheaval. The EU is simply not built to transmit power in that direction - rather, to steadily suck all power to the EU centre.

However, Cameron's idea of "limiting the European Court of Justice's jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level" is hardly a restriction at all. Since, even before Lisbon was dreamt of, the ECJ had imbued the EU with the power to set criminal sanctions - a definitive power of statehood never set out in any EU treaty.

Confining the ECJ's activism to pre-Lisbon levels will not go nearly far enough, even towards Mr Cameron's own limited own objectives.

Referendum contradiction

However the key contradiction in the Tory leader's statement came when he first decried the need for an alternative referendum on his negotiating aims as having "no practical effect". Yet later said he would consider such a vote at the end of a first Conservative term of government if his negotiating aims hadn't been met.

"If those circumstances were to occur," he said - referring to a failure to secure the opt-outs he seeks - "we would not rule out a referendum on a wider package of guarantees."

But what "practical effect" does he think such a referendum would have at that point, but not either in advance of his negotiations to strengthen his hand, or afterwards in approval of the deal he had achieved?

After all, as we highlighted yesterday, is this not the man who in The Sun attacked Gordon Brown for having the "arrogant belief that he - and only he - has the right to decide what's best for Britain's future"?

The man who said "Giving people freedom and control over their lives is one of the things that makes me a Conservative."

And what more fundamental question of freedom and control is there than to decide for ourselves where governing power should lie?

All about trust

Cameron's proposals contain some interesting steps. From our point of view, they can only be first steps. But a journey has to start somewhere, and at least it appears he is facing in the right direction.

Talking today of the Labour and Liberal Democrat failure to deliver a promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Cameron said: "It ranks alongside the expenses scandal as one of the reasons that trust in politics has broken down" - echoing a point the DM was making on this blog back in June.

Yet now he expects us to trust him based only on more words in a party manifesto? It's just not enough, and he cannot possibly expect it to be.

Cameron's moment of truth

2009-11-03T18:43:00.003Z

With this afternoon's confirmation that the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, has finally signed the Lisbon Treaty, all questions turn to how David Cameron is going to respond.

Klaus's signature, following a valiant resistance, removes the last remaining hurdle preventing the treaty from becoming law.

David Cameron gave a "cast iron guarantee" of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in an article in The Sun back in September 2007.

In the same article he said of Gordon Brown's refusal to give us a say that "It's the arrogant belief that he - and only he - has the right to decide what's best for Britain's future."

So is Cameron seriously intending to ditch the idea of an EU referendum altogether - and be condemned by his own words in Britain's most widely read newspaper?

Is there any integrity to his broader rhetoric about fixing our 'broken politics'?

Lisbon problem

Cameron's new difficulty with the Lisbon referendum is not hard to see.

Once ratified, the Lisbon Treaty will be merged into the existing EU treaties and become practically impossible to reverse in one go.

Voting weights will change, EU positions and institutions will be created - such as those of the full-time President of the Council of Ministers and High Representative for Foreign Affairs - and the EU's powers will be amended across the broad range of policy areas its institutions now preside over.

The 26 other national governments would have to agree to any changes, and are not likely to agree to reversing all this in one go.

Britain could of course still hold a retrospective referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even after it's ratified. But at that stage, little practical change could come of the result.

As a symbolic vote, finally putting on public record Britain's opposition to the EU centralisation project, the idea of a Lisbon referendum still has some merit.

But in this 'new situation', shouldn't we be aiming higher than that? Aiming for something that brings about real change?

New treaties

What David Cameron will face, if he wins the next election, will not be the Lisbon Treaty any more. Rather, the newly amended versions of the main EU treaties, incorporating the Lisbon changes across the EU's entire field of operation.

His position, so far, is that in this case "political integration will have gone too far" and "the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in this country."

Towards addressing the scale of political integration, he has talked of reclaiming powers for Britain in specific, targetted areas - such as social and employment policies. Areas like justice and fisheries have also been discussed.

In doing so, he could seek to roll back the Lisbon Treaty piecemeal. But such a plan would go further, and reclaim powers conceded in treaties long before Lisbon existed.

More broadly, such a demand would undermine the entire idea and direction of the EU as we know it today.

But we've yet to hear how Mr Cameron proposes to resolve the EU's "lack of democratic legitimacy".

Dangerous path

As the only major party that has, thus far, stuck to its guns in supporting a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the Conservatives must tread very carefully if they hope to carry over public faith and support to such a new strategy.

Most people don't trust politicians, and many eurosceptics don't trust the Conservatives any more than the other major parties.

What must first be made crystal clear to those within the Westminster Village is that trust will not be forthcoming based alone on fine words in a Conservative manifesto.

We've been there and done that. Labour and the Lib Dems, with their broken manifesto promises, have put paid to trust ever being given again on that basis alone.

Rollback referendum

If David Cameron wants to be seen as a leader - as someone who can be trusted to act - what's needed in tomorrow's policy announcement is a firm pledge to hold an EU referendum of some sort early in the first term of a Conservative government.

If not on the Lisbon treaty, then that referendum should be held on the package of powers that Cameron proposes to repatriate - on Britain's 'new deal' with the EU.

This pledge of a replacement EU vote is the only possible bridge by which supporters of a Lisbon referendum will feel able to transfer from that "cast iron guarantee" to the new policy.

The alternative - a complex renegotiation plan and no referendum pledge - is a path that threatens the Conservatives with internal divisions, agitation by eurosceptics both inside and outside the party, public mistrust and, ultimately, election loss.

Make or break

Cameron's announcement tomorrow might not in itself be enough to win him the next general election.

But if it lacks a replacement EU referendum for the one we were promised on the Lisbon Treaty, it could easily lose it for him.

Who are the real authoritarians, Mr Miliband?

2009-10-21T15:48:00.009+01:00

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has in recent weeks launched a typically New Labour, McCarthyite attack on the Conservative party for teaming up with some east European political parties in the European parliament who are alleged to hold anti-semitic, homophobic and ‘neo-Nazi’ views.

However, since the European Parliament is clearly not where significant power lies in Brussels, the decision of the Tories to team up with East European centre-right parties is of little consequence, regardless of whether or not the claims made against them have been spun in some typically New Labour way by the foreign secretary.

McCarthyite tactic

New Labour, throughout its Peter Mandelson-orchestrated history, has frequently attempted to smear its opponents as being ‘far right’ or ‘xenophobic’ in order to distract attention from the actual substance of the inconvenient political position or claim being advanced.

The foreign secretary in making the attacks he has is merely continuing a long, disreputable tradition, characterised in relation to the EU issue principally by former Europe minister Denis MacShane.

David Miliband’s intention now is to distract attention away from his government’s anti-democratic breaking of its promise at the 2005 general election to let the British people vote on the Lisbon treaty (the cynically re-named European Constitution rejected by a large majority of French and Dutch voters in 2005).

Nor does he want us to focus on the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the system of governance that citizens from all the member countries are being placed under the control of without their consent.

EU's fascist backers

Since Mr Miliband has attempted to create this McCarthyite smokescreen, he should perhaps reflect that, as Dr John Laughland’s book The Tainted Source: The undemocratic origins of the European Union so brilliantly demonstrates, the original project of creating a Pan-European political system was actually enthusiastically supported by fascist movements.

The National Alliance in Italy, the successors to Mussolini’s party and partners in the Berlusconi coalition government, are firm supporters of greater European political union today.

The British fascist leader, Oswald Mosley, campaigned post-war on the slogan of ‘Europe a nation’. The original plans for a single currency were drawn up by the Nazis.

Former French presidents and drivers for European centralisation, Francois Mitterand, Giscard d’Estaing and Jacques Delors were all active for the Vichy government in various capacities. Mitterand even received the Francisc medal from Marshall Petain for his service to the fascist regime.

Fascists were attracted to the idea of a politically unified and regulated continent with a non-elected elite at its core.

New euro-authoritarians

The peoples of Europe today are confronted by a new and dangerous post-democratic elitism - Euro-Authoritarianism - of which David Miliband is one classic manifestation.

Euro-Authoritarianism is self-evidently more subtle than Twentieth Century fascism, and it is not motivated by anti-semitism.

The Euro-Authoritarians do not seek to end multi-party elections, but rather to greatly restrict the parameters within which electorates can make meaningful collective choices.

This is achieved by transferring ever more law-powers to appointed, non-accountable institutions in Brussels and through so-called Human Rights legislation that enables judges to become policy makers though their interpretations of vaguely drafted articles.

The new Euro-Authoritarians are driven by a post-modernist, Third Way ideology. This represents a direct threat to the liberal, anti-colonialist legacy of the European Enlightenment and the idea that sovereignty should reside with national communities of people rather than unaccountable elites.

Mr Miliband and his associates in New Labour today are working to create an elitist, post-democratic political system based in Brussels that does not accord with the rule of law and can by-pass parliamentary and public accountability.

The Euro-Authoritarians fear the concept of popular democracy, hence their hysterical denunciations of the idea that voters should be allowed to directly determine important issues by referendum.

The New Euro-Authoritarians support…

…preventing the peoples of the EU member states having a direct democratic say regarding whether or not new law-making powers should be centralised in Brussels. When the French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Lisbon treaty (then named the EU Constitution) their wishes were ignored. When the Irish rejected both the Nice and Lisbon treaties they were forced to vote again within a year in rigged referenda so that these treaties could be forced through.

…the centralisation of more law-making powers in Brussels. Once directives are passed, no national elected government or parliament can opt to reject or reverse them as the unelected Commission retains the monopoly right to initiate new legislation. Because of the volume of laws emanating from Brussels, most of the measures are passed in Britain through the use of statutory instruments. MPs do not even get the chance to debate them, let alone vote to block them.

…the introduction of a raft of measures designed to increase state surveillance and control. Lisbon will lead to the creation of the Committee on Internal Security (COSI) which will share DNA, fingerprint, CCTV footage and internet surveillance material between security organisations. In May, the EU Data Retention Directive was passed. This enables state agencies to find out what all citizens - not just those suspected of committing criminal offences - have been downloading and who they have been contacting electronically.

The Commission is already funding Project Indect which is a mass surveillance project dedicated to identifying "abnormal behaviour" through CCTV footage and a "continuous monitoring of websites, discussion forums, usernet groups… and individual computer systems".

The EU now has an embryonic police force, Europol, whose officers, like senior EU officials, enjoy, revealingly, immunity from prosecution in member states (Statutory Instrument 1997 No.2973). This body will gain powers of "implementation"of operational powers within the member states as a consequence of Lisbon.

EU citizens can now under the European Arrest Warrant be deported automatically to another member country without any hard evidence having been provided by prosecuting authorities. The Commission has been for many years financing various projects designed to result in the introduction of ID cards, though their formal implementation is still a matter of national law.

…the current undemocratic structure of the EU. In addition to the unelected Commission’s monopoly right to introduce new legislation, the Council of Ministers meets in secret and votes are not recorded. In reality, the vast majority of its decisions are taken by civil servants representing the ministers from the member states in COREPER. European voters cannot hold these bodies collectively responsible through the ballot box.

The executive and the key legislative body, therefore, are beyond democratic account. It is illegal under article 108 of the current treaty for elected representatives from the member states to in any way try to influence the deliberations of the European Central Bank.

Under Lisbon, the political leaders, meeting behind closed doors in the European Council, will be able to appoint a full-time president and foreign minister to represent the Union on the world stage.

… an elitist, corporatist system of politics. The mindset of the EU political class is to concentrate power in the hands of elite bodies representing big business and the major trades unions. Hence, the Committee of the Social Partners which affords elite access to the European Round Table of Industrialists.

The EU model of corporatist politics cuts out ordinary voters and gives a massive advantage to lobbyists from big financial interests, as was seen in the decision to outlaw 300 alternative health treatments following extensive lobbying by Pfizer, Boots and other big companies.

Cowardly elite

New Labour have shown themselves to be notoriously cowardly in terms of openly debating the EU issue, as well as virtually every other issue.

They prefer, as good authoritarians, to speak only at controlled, all-ticket events with no or only planted questions from the floor.

Having made his outspoken accusation in the cosy company of the press that EU critics like William Hague and the Tory party are consorting with ‘neo-Nazis’, does the foreign secretary - who claims to be an intellectual - have the cojones to publicly debate the question of ‘anti-democratic politics’ with Dr Laughland?

We would be pleased to make all the arrangements, including finding a neutral chairperson that both participants find acceptable.

So how about it Mr Miliband?

BBC bias in Lisbon treaty reporting

2009-10-07T18:02:00.012+01:00

UPDATE: Tues 20 October 2009

The BBC are at it again with their subtle bias: "His signature is now virtually the last hurdle before full ratification of the treaty, which is aimed at streamlining the 27-member EU's decision making." A completely one-sided presentation of the treaty's purpose, given in the BBC's supposedly non-partisan voice, and therefore not fairly balanced by the critical quote from the clearly partisan Czech President that follows it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

A flurry of BBC reports surrounding the recent referendum in Ireland has once again displayed the continued pro-EU bias in the BBC's supposedly 'neutral' and 'impartial' output.

BBC stories about the referendum result, discussing what the Conservatives now intend to do about the Lisbon Treaty and on questions about Czech ratification were all peppered with the subtly biased descriptive statements about the Treaty that have featured in many other BBC articles on the subject in recent years.

The BBC kicks off its latest festival of euro bias just a few paragraphs into the piece reporting the result of the Irish vote, by declaring: "The treaty - which is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the 27-nation bloc - ... "

This is of course an abjectly pro-EU 'government line' description of the purpose of the treaty, with which the treaty's critics would profoundly disagree.

We, for example, would argue that the treaty's only purpose is to continue the EU political integration project, by transferring more decision-making powers from national governments and parliaments to undemocratic EU institutions. And to establish for the EU further symbols of the statehood to which it so clearly aspires.

Yet there, presented as the view of the 'neutral' BBC, the unalloyed government view sits. Completely unqualified and unattributed, supposedly a statement of impartial fact.

Credibility clash

Nearer the bottom of the same article appears a second, similarly biased statement of BBC 'fact'.

"The treaty is intended to make EU institutions better suited to the enlarged bloc of 27", the article intones. Another 'government line'.

At least, after this second biased claim, albeit right down at the bottom of the piece, the views of "opponents" are finally given a short airing.

But still that is unsatisfactory, as such opponents are being set against not the opinions of the EU, the government or some campaign group whose broad stance can be determined and their view put in context. But the view of the supposedly neutral BBC.

That credibility clash is a totally unfair one on the treaty's critics.

More bias

The same problem crops up in the BBC article questioning the Tory position on the treaty after the Irish vote.

Again, only a few paragraphs down, it is written that the treaty "aims to strengthen EU decision-making processes by using a majority vote, not unanimity, for more decisions."

Yet another completely pro-EU interpretation of the treaty's aims, unattributed to any known EU-friendly voices, and unaccompanied by any balanced mention of the consequent weakening of national democratic structures that more EU majority voting entails.

No mention, for example, of how majority voting allows entire governments and parliaments to be overridden by EU institutions and laws imposed on countries regardless of domestic popular or even political opinion.

Are we really expected to imagine that the BBC considers such trifling details of little relevance or interest to readers? Because if not, what other conclusion is there to draw but that of unthinking or deliberate bias?

No critical voices about the treaty are featured in this article at all. But two quotes - from Gordon Brown and Irish PM Brian Cowen - are included in effusive praise of the treaty.

Third time unlucky

And finally, in an article about the Czech ratification of the treaty, the BBC states without qualification as if it were indisputable fact: "The treaty aims to streamline EU decision-making and boost the EU's role globally."

"Opponents" do get a look-in this time, using the same non-specific line as previously that: "Opponents see Lisbon as part of a federalist agenda that threatens national sovereignty."

No detail there about specific negative treaty provisions that might actually make people question the treaty's merits. Heaven forbid!

Guilty verdict

Back in 2005, in a report the BBC itself commissioned, the Corporation was deemed guilty of an institutional pro-EU bias.

Probably worse than any deliberate bias, of which the BBC was cleared, the report concluded that the problem was institutional because the broadcaster “suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentionial bias”.

It put this down to BBC journalists often being ignorant about how the EU works.

But a far greater contributor to the problem seems to be the internal perpetuation of an inaccurate cultural view of the EU's critics - a view that is too heavily defined by crude labels used by the government and other EU supporters to try to discredit their opponents.

The most commonly broadcast manifestation of this cultural fault is frequent use of the term "anti-Europeans" to describe EU-critics, with all the cultural antipathy to 'Europe' that term misleadingly injects into what is in reality a political debate about governing structures.

Sadly, on recent form, it seems very little progress has been made in the intervening years to restore the BBC's reputation for impartiality.

Ireland votes on Lisbon treaty

2009-10-05T12:06:00.018+01:00

Ireland has voted to approve the Lisbon Treaty in the re-run of the referendum that led to the treaty's rejection last year.

In a vote tainted by irregularities and illegalities - such as blatant breaches of Irish referendum rules requiring balanced media coverage and no public money to be used for either side - the result this time was a 67% 'Yes' vote.

While it's hard to believe that the Irish people voted 'Yes' based on the idea that the economy would suffer further if they refused to give the EU even more governing powers, that seems to be exactly what a majority has been bullied into doing.

The pro-Lisbon camp promised a 'Yes' vote would mean more jobs and economic recovery - the relevance of either outcome to the Lisbon Treaty having been dismissed by even the Irish Referendum Commission.

If these promises fail to materialize - for example, if Irish unemployment continues to rise after this 'Yes' vote - it will be clear beyond doubt that the 'Yes' camp has misled people.

In all likelihood, the only jobs the Lisbon Treaty will create will be in Brussels for yet more former politicians and more legions of attendant bureaucrats taking up new positions in the various EU agencies and bodies the treaty introduces.

That further needless financial burden on the backs of Europe's taxpayers will only delay economic recovery, not hasten it.

Imbalanced campaign

That the 'Yes' camp ran a fundamentally dishonest campaign appears to be widely accepted.

As ever, their chief strategy was to make a deliberate conflation between the implications of EU membership and those of the Lisbon Treaty, and claiming falsely that a 'No' would put Ireland's economic links to other EU member countries at risk.

The last thing the 'Yes' camp wanted to discuss was the the treaty itself and whether it is really necessary for yet more political decisions to be transferred to Brussels.

Whether, for example, it is necessary for the EU to have a full-time President, Foreign Minister, its own diplomatic service, or for Ireland to give up a large slice of its influence over EU decisions.

'No' outspent

This strategy was particularly potent at the present time, when Ireland's economic troubles have worsened considerably since the last Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The inaccurate representation of what the referendum was about by the 'Yes' camp was then rammed home by outspending the 'No' side more than ten times over.

In particular, serious legal questions must now be asked about the role played by the European Commission - a direct beneficiary of the result - which used millions of pounds of public money to influence the outcome in their favour.

The myth still perpetuated by a few starry-eyed EU luvvies that the Commission is the benign 'civil service' element of the EU structure must now be permanently marked 'busted'.

Wrong path

With this vote, Ireland has stepped into the worst of all worlds.

None of the promises made by the 'Yes' side can or will be delivered.

Millions of potential friends among ordinary people across Europe who would have liked to reject this treaty, had they been given a say, have been lost.

Respect will not even be forthcoming from EU political elites, who will most likely be chuckling behind Ireland's back in amazement that their economic scaremongering and shabby trick of empty declarations has actually worked.

Democracy tag team

The baton of halting the onward march of an illegitimate EU State now falls to the lone figure of Vaclav Klaus - President of the Czech Republic.

But even if it passes his final hurdles, the underhand way in which this treaty has been forced through has served to further erode faith in the EU project among those who uphold democratic principles.

Disquiet about how the EU and its backward-looking supporters amongst Europe's governing class have conspired to deceive people about their intentions and deny people a say on their actions will echo long into the future - long after this particular event is forgotten.

Today, EU elites may well celebrate another step towards this extra level being built on the EU's already lofty powers.

But it has been achieved at the cost of further crumbling the foundations of the EU's legitimacy.

Commission out of control

2009-10-02T00:12:00.001+01:00

Is there any more democratically corrupt an idea than a governing institution - which stands to gain considerable extra powers depending on the outcome of a referendum result - splashing millions of pounds of public money trying to influence the result in their favour?

Public bodies using vast sums of taxpayers' money not available to campaigners on the other side of a referendum debate is not just unfair but, more seriously, incompatible with how governing institutions should behave in modern liberal democracy.

Yet this is the situation right now in respect of recent European Commission interventions in the Irish referendum debate on the Lisbon Treaty.

Commission circus

First we had Catherine Day, secretary-general of the European Commission and, if EU-fanatical voices are to be believed, effectively head of the EU’s civil service.

According to the Irish Times, at the beginning of September she "spent the past week in Ireland undertaking a series of media appearances and public-speaking engagements to support the Yes campaign."

Just imagine the outrage if the head of Britain's civil service during a general election campaign spent a week publicly campaigning for victory by one or other political party while still in post.

Leaving aside the political consideration, who paid for Ms Day's trip?

Then along came European Commission President Jose 'dimension of Empire' Barroso, hot footing it to Ireland brandishing the taxpayers' cheque book.

Visiting Limerick last week he pledged just under £13.5m (€14.8m) to 'help former Dell workers find new jobs'.

"I am very glad that the Commission can demonstrate concretely the Union's solidarity with Limerick [...] in this manner," puffed Mr Barroso. Neglecting to mention that the EU had already approved a far more substantial £50m (€55m) grant given to Dell by the Polish government, towards expanding the computer company's operations in Lodz - the place to which the Irish jobs were exported.

Then, as we highlighted here last week, we saw Transport Commissioner (and Commission Vice President) Antonio Tajani joining an invective-strewn 'Yes to Lisbon' flying tour of Ireland organised by Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair.

Capping it all, yesterday the European Commission paid what has subsequently been confirmed as £139,000 (€150,000) to insert in all Irish Sunday newspapers over 1 million copies of a 16-page pamphlet 'explaining' the Lisbon Treaty.

The pamphlet says "Today, members of the EU enjoy a wealth of benefits: a free market with a currency that makes trade easier and more efficient, the creation of millions of jobs, improved workers' rights, free movement of people and a cleaner environment.

Then claims, even more controversially, "These are major goals. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to give the EU the tools to achieve them", before launching into a rollecoaster ride of serious inaccuracies and major omissions.

This latest wad of public cash spent by the Commission on securing for itself more power was on top of a £1.4m (€1.6m) contract the Commission signed earlier this year with public relations firm Edelman, to conduct a "PR blitz ... aimed at the three groups who voted en masse against the Lisbon first time around."

Action 'illegal'

Reacting to the news of the Commission pamphlet in last Sunday's newspapers, former Green Party MEP and chairwoman of the anti-Lisbon People’s Movement, Patricia McKenna, has sent a legal letter warning the commission she would take out an injunction against any newspapers carrying the guide to Lisbon.

“This clearly breaches Irish law as set down by Supreme Court in the McKenna judgment in 1995 where taxpayers’ money cannot be used to promote one side in a referendum. This guide is advocacy,” she said.

According to Bruno Waterfield in the Daily Telegraph, even the legal services of both the commission and the Council of Ministers expressed reservations the publication of the "citizens summary" of the Lisbon Treaty.

Waterfield quotes an EU official saying: “The lawyers asked if it was right for the commission to produce a summary of Lisbon, before it was ratified and when there was not one for the Constitution."

In addition to Irish law, McKenna also questioned if the commission breached EU law, given that the institution has no treaty-given role advocating the ratification of EU treaties in member countries.

Rules sacrificed

Yet somehow the European Commission is getting away with interfering, using large sums of public money, to its own potential benefit.

The truth is, the EU elite are so desperate to barge their self-aggrandising Lisbon Treaty past this only permitted public verdict that the rules are being flung out of the window.

Vote NO

That the Commission sees its antics during the Irish referendum as acceptable says everything we need to know about the dangerous, pre-Enlightenment era attitude to democracy and the rule of law at the heart of the EU.

Please, Ireland. Today, only you have the power. This is not just a vote about the EU and Ireland, but about Europe and democracy.

For the sake of democracy in Europe. Please stop these people, by voting 'No'.

Ryanair suffers for O'Leary's Lisbon lunacy

2009-09-25T18:12:00.006+01:00

UPDATE: Weds 30 September 2009

Michael O'Leary truly gives the game away in a TV interview, saying: “One of the reasons that I am campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote is that our Government is incompetent, yet I need to persuade them to sell me Aer Lingus” - according to The Times.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Daily Telegraph today features a great article on Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary's 'Yes to Lisbon' campaign.

The outspoken airline boss - king of surprise extra charges and nemesis of customer service - has pledged to splash half a million euros on a Ryanair campaign in support of a 'Yes' vote in Ireland's looming repeat referendum.

But landing a potent succession of punches against the campaign, the Telegraph first launches into a 'double whammy' attack on the EU's Transport Commissioner for joining in with a pro-Lisbon flying circus orchestrated by O'Leary earlier this week.

The suggestion is that the Commissioner both broke impartiality rules by taking sides in Ireland's debate over the Lisbon Treaty and, by accepting free flights and hospitality, also engaged in a potential conflict of interest given his role in decisions over airline policy.

But even better, the article goes on to humiliate O'Leary himself for his blatant personal hypocrisy over the EU and the last referendum result, pointing out that the Ryanair boss's current view is very different to the one he reportedly held last October, following Ireland's first 'No' vote.

Bias Bellenaise

During six hours of Ryanair flights around Ireland on Tuesday, Commissioner Antonio Tajani reportedly enjoyed on-board chicken Bellenaise and wild rice as his host O'Leary launched into numerous foam-flecked tirades directed at "No to Lisbon" campaigners.

According to the Telegraph, Mr Tajani stood silently by during a succession of press conferences in which Mr O'Leary mocked Lisbon Treaty opponents as "numpties", "numb nuts" and "clowns" (solid arguments to hand more decisions over to Brussels there, Michael!) all the while referring to the attendant eurocrat as "my new friend commissioner Tajani."

Allegations of two serious offences against Commission rules committed by Mr Tajani has sparked a chorus of calls for his resignation, coupled with accusations levelled at O'Leary that he has launched his "Yes" campaign to curry favour with both Brussels and the Irish government that hold such sway over his current business ambitions.

As transport commissioner, Mr Tajani plays a key role in setting the rules governing airline operations and also has influence over competition rulings such as those covering Ryanair's desperate attempts to take over Aer Lingus.

In addition, just as O'Leary leapt aboard the 'Yes to Lisbon' campaign all cosy with the Irish governing elite, this outstanding matter is under consideration by the Irish Aviation Authority.

If approved, looser seating arrangements would likely boost Ryanair's profits by hundreds of millions of pounds.

Giving away an insight into his true motivations, according to the Irish Times O'Leary earlier in the week said of Brussels : "these f***ers have very long memories. They stuck it to us enough times."

"You can never link one with the other, but Ryanair’s offer to Aer Lingus is the only airline merger that’s been turned down by Brussels on competition grounds in 30 years," he said.

Can't link one with the other? Really, who is O'Leary trying to kid?

Flying flip-flop

Besides the business considerations over which O'Leary is clearly prepared to help pawn Ireland's democracy, his sudden conversion to the Lisbon Treaty also flies in the face of his previous remarks on EU issues.

Back in October, after it had become clear that Ireland was going to be forced by the EU to vote again, O'Leary said: "It seems that only in the EU, Ireland and Zimbabwe are you forced to vote twice. The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do."

During yesterday's Today FM debate on the Lisbon Treaty featuring both O'Leary and Libertas leader Declan Ganley - which the Irish Times describes as quickly turning into the 'Mick and Declan show' - Ganley drove the charge of personal hypocrisy deeper.

To titters from the audience, O’Leary was reminded of his previous criticisms of the European Commission as “Stalinist” and “an evil empire” run by “morons” and “gobshites”.

Symbolic of the level of debate on the issue that the 'Yes to Lisbon' side has to offer, an unrepentant O’Leary reportedly rolled his eyes and retorted “Accept No for an answer Declan and bugger off”.

If only the EU would accept 'No' for an answer, Declan probably would.

Ryanair boycott

During the course of the Lisbon Treaty debate, the embarrassing intervention of Michael O'Leary has only added to the evidently already plentiful supply of bad press Ryanair is clocking up.

Apart from pushing a campaign directly opposed to the democratic decision already made in a referendum by a majority of Irish people, millions across Europe oppose the Lisbon Treaty and the EU's whole current direction.

In addition to three countries having voted against the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, the only independent poll of all 27 member states, taken in 2007, showed that majorities in 16 countries would vote 'no' to a Treaty giving more powers to the EU.

A reality that is all too evident when you look at websites such as that of the Europe Says No campaign.

So for the owner of a Europe-wide airline to plant himself so publicly on the wrong side in a Europe-wide debate smacks from a business point of view of shooting yourself spectacularly in the foot.

O'Leary might think he's sticking it to the 'No' side, but his level of debate is an embarrassment and in reality his interventions are daily putting the boot into the Europe-wide popularity of his business.

'Europe Says No' to the Lisbon Treaty

2009-09-23T13:22:00.005+01:00

A new, pan-European campaign called Europe Says No: No to Lisbon, Yes to democracy has been launched.

The campaign is being organised by a wide range of people across Europe, and across the political spectrum, who want to see the Lisbon Treaty rejected.

In advance of Ireland's outrageous repeat referendum on 2nd October, Europe Says No aims to show how many people across Europe would themselves vote 'No' to Lisbon ... if they could.

The initiative has brought together an excellent range of supporters, including Harry van Bommel (Socialist Party MP in the Netherlands); Gustav Fridolin (Swedish journalist, author and former Green Party MP); British Labour MP and former minister Gisela Stuart; Sari Essayah (Christian Democrat MEP for Finland) and many others.

On 2nd October, Ireland will have an historic opportunity to lead Europe to a better, more democratic future by once again voting 'No' to the Lisbon treaty.

Please show your support for a second Irish 'No' by visiting the Europe Says No website and leaving a supportive comment. Make sure your voice is heard!

The campaign also has a group on Facebook, which needs as many members as possible to ensure a strong message is sent in support of a second Irish 'No' - click here to view.

Schools cuts will only pay for extra £2bn to EU

2009-09-21T17:13:00.010+01:00

This weekend Schools Secretary Ed Balls became the first cabinet minister to set out where the axe may fall on public services, in the government's bid to bring Britain's finances back into balance.

But rather than cut the unjustifiable extra £2bn the government plans to give to the EU next year, Mr Balls revealed that he wants to cut the same amount from the schools budget instead.

Speaking to the Sunday Times, Mr Balls said that up to 3,000 senior school staff could be axed instead of excessive spending on the EU.

Primary school heads as well as deputies, assistant heads, plus heads of subject in primary and secondary schools could all find themselves in the firing line.

But any benefit to our public finances contributed by these likely painful schools cuts will be quickly eaten up by the looming 60% increase in the amount Britain pays into the EU's mismanaged accounts.

Rot at the top

As the minister widely recognised to be Gordon Brown's right-hand man, it's fair to assume Mr Ball's stance - that cash for key services must be chopped before cash for the EU - represents misguided attitudes to public services right at the top of government.

But how many MPs - especially those in the most marginal seats - will stand by this twisted credo when schools in their own constituencies face staff cuts?

MPs can't possibly hope that voters will accept an explanation that the state of our public finances warrants cuts when people can see even more billions being splashed on the audit-failing EU.

Angry reaction

The government's plans have been angrily criticised by teachers' organisations and are already being described as a potential 'bloodbath'.

Speaking about Mr Balls, Mick Brookes of the the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "The impression he gives is that head teachers are among the 'bureaucrats' who can be replaced."

"What does he think they're doing all day? We're looking for him to get his own house in order before criticising school leadership."

EU waste

Stopping the complete waste of public money on the EU - at the very least blocking next year's unacceptable £2bn increase - would be a good first step towards the government getting its own house in order.

Two recent examples of how the EU is wasting public money on a grand scale are typical of the stories that now appear regularly.

According to the Irish edition of the Sunday Times earlier this month, retiring Irish Commissioner Charlie McCreevy is set to receive a massive £362,000 (€400,000) EU payoff, having spent five years enjoying a £216,000 (€239,000) EU salary plus lavish expenses.

Worse, Mr McCreevy is just one Commissioner of 27 enjoying that pay packet, and not the only one soon retiring.

And just last week there was news via EUobserver that the EU is splashing £280m on a new, self-titled 'palace' in Brussels to house its top officials.

Take action

To contact Ed Balls and ask him why teachers are getting the chop rather than the £2bn extra the government plans to give the EU, you can email him at dcsf.ministers@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk

EU gets 60% more as public services face 'efficiency savings'

2009-09-11T17:31:00.000+01:00

This week, Alistair Darling proclaimed that the government is "ready to make the tough choices necessary" in order to bring Britain's public finances back into balance.

Speaking in Cardiff, the Chancellor warned of "slower growth in public spending in the coming years" and that "setting priorities inevitably means tough choices."

"The first priority", he said, "has to be to look for areas where we can achieve greater efficiency."

The Chancellor's comments have been seen as paving the way for public sector spending cuts expected to be outlined in the Pre-Budget Report this autumn.

Wrong priorities

But in an early example of the kind of priority setting we can expect from this government, just a couple of weeks ago we learnt that one of the most wasteful elements of government spending - Britain's cash contributions to the European Union budget - will next year rocket by 60%.

According to the BBC, the increase will take Britain's annual net contribution to the EU budget from £4.1bn to £6.2bn in 2010 - equivalent to writing a cheque to the EU for £119 million every single week.

Unjustifiable increase

Handing this much extra cash to the EU is completely unjustifiable, not just in today's tightened financial circumstances, when public services are clearly facing cuts.

But also in light of the fact that the EU's accounts have been severely criticised by auditors now for 14 years running. Even the EU's auditors have trouble telling us how EU institutions are spending the money they currently receive.

That any public money at all is still being handed to the EU, given the
on-going uncertainty by auditors over how it is being spent, is scandal enough. But now Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling plan to give the EU billions more.

Short-sighted deal

The increase comes as a result of the 2007-2013 EU budget deal done by Tony Blair in late 2005 and pushed through Parliament by Gordon Brown in 2007. All highlighted by the Democracy Movement at the time in a campaign called Stop the Cheques.

Some of the main myths perpetuated by the government to justify the deal were dismantled in our December 2005 EU budget factsheet and these points remain just as relevant today.

Because if you tackle the government over their enthusiasm for splashing billions more on the EU, you'll get the same old myths in response.

The full consequences of that short-sighted deal are today hitting home at the worst possible time for Britain's public finances.

EU waste

The EU has to be by far the least deserving of all possible recipients of extra public cash.

Beyond the critical role of public services like the NHS, on which so many depend, you only have to watch programmes like Channel 4's Secret Millionaire to see how many people are struggling with next to no financial help to support the worst off in our society through small, local charitable initiatives.

For these people, often working to improve people's quality of life in struggling communities where the local council cannot or will not provide much-needed facilities, even small amounts of money can make a huge difference to their work continuing.

Next to such real life realities on our screens every week, news that the audit-failing EU, with its legions of pampered hangers-on and lavish glass palaces in Brussels, is being given an extra £2bn by the government - despite no-one being absolutely sure how such money is being spent and regular reports of waste and fraud - is a glaring injustice.

Real message

The message from Alistair Darling is clear. Swathes of services on which people depend for their health, care, education, financial security and much more will shortly find themselves in the firing line. But spending on the EU is sacrosanct.

The reality is that, as public finances are squeezed, the government plans to deprive essential services of funding and cause cuts in order to pay for this outpouring of cash to the wasteful EU.

Unless the government and the MPs who voted to approve this EU budget deal take urgent action now to reverse it - to refocus public money on real needs in a very different economic situation than when the deal was agreed - they must accept personal responsibility for the resulting public service cuts to come.

Short-sighted decision-making, disinterest in correcting their mistake despite the billions at stake, topped with hypocrisy over the proper funding of public services will hardly be the best scenario for success in the looming general election.

Alistair Darling may talk of his "tough choices", but inaction now over the unjustifiable scale spending on the EU will mean that he makes the choice of many at the ballot box very easy indeed.

Cameron must clarify referendum pledge

2009-07-15T10:29:00.009+01:00

The fate of the EU's Lisbon Treaty is set to come to a head in just a few weeks time.

A repeat Irish referendum is due on
2 October and ratification by Germany is expected shortly afterwards.

EU pressure will then fall on Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who has indicated that he will hold out as long as he can before signing the treaty into law.

Here, continued vague statements from the Conservative party on whether they will hold the referendum promised for the Lisbon treaty or give people a say on an alternative don't lend credence to the party's idea of being seen as the next government.

So DM campaign director Marc Glendening has this week written to Conservative leader David Cameron, asking for clarity.

--------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Cameron,

I am writing to you to try and ascertain what exactly is the current position of the Conservative party in relation to a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

The consensus of opinion in the media and political worlds is that if, by the time the Conservatives form the next government the treaty has been ratified in all the other EU member states, you will drop the Lisbon referendum pledge.

Ken Clarke, appearing on the BBC's Politics Show on June 14, said that: "If the Irish eferendum endorses the treaty and ratification comes into effect, then our settled olicy is quite clear that the treaty will not be reopened."

A Tory Central Office spokesman was quoted as saying in response to Mr Clarke's that "There is no change to Conservative policy. As Ken Clarke explained, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and in force across the EU by the time of the election of a Conservative government, we have always made clear that we would not let matters rest there." This seems to implicitly confirm what Ken Clarke said.

When William Hague was challenged on Newsnight by Jeremy Paxman during the recent European parliamentary election campaign to say one way or the other whether the party would still adhere to the referendum pledge following a possible 'yes' vote in the second Irish referendum, and ratification in the other countries that have not yet done so, he refused to answer the question. He too fell back on the "we will not let matters rest" mantra.

However, in contrast, Dan Hannan MEP has said recently that he remains convinced that you are still committed to consulting the British people directly in a post-ratification referendum on the treaty.

The Democracy Movement is Britain's largest non-party pressure group campaigning against today's EU. We are increasingly being appoached by our supporters and members of the public, some of whom are supporters of your party, trying to ascertain what is now the party's true position on the Lisbon Treaty and referendum, due to its pivotal bearing on how they will vote at the next general election.

As things stand, we can only tell them that it looks as if, like Labour and the Liberal Democrats, you too will abandon your manifesto promise of a referendum. Beyond that, it is impossible for us to give a meaningful response to these enquiries, as the Conservative party is refusing to state a clear position.

Why not now end the damaging speculation that you are planning to drop the referendum commitment and state unequivocally that - regardless of whether or not the Lisbon treaty has come into legal force by the time you become prime minister, and in accordance with the "cast iron guarantee" to hold a referendum you wrote of in The Sun (26 Sept 07) - you will call a referendum within a specified period of coming into office?

Unless you are able to do this, the Democracy Movement and others will be forced to assume that Ken Clarke's above-mentioned endorsement of the status quo should Lisbon be ratified is the settled position of the Conservative party.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Marc Glendening
Campaign director

--------------------------------------------------

Please join in this quest for clarity from the party that looks likely to be our next government, by sending a version of this letter to your own Conservative MP or, especially, candidate hopeful of being elected. We would be very interested to see a copy of any reply you receive.

Stage set for repeat Irish referendum

2009-07-10T17:16:00.002+01:00

Despite having widely dismissed the idea of a second referendum, Ireland's politicians have gone back on their word.

Perhaps the grim predictability of this situation is the reason that there's barely a whisper from the media about such extraordinary U-turns, threadbare justifications and little interest in confronting politicians with their previous statements.

Such as that of Irish EU Affairs Minister, Dick Roche, when shortly before the last referendum he wrote on his website; "The idea that we can reject this Treaty and have another Referendum as happened with the Nice Treaty is a dilusion. That cannot and will not happen."

As a demonstration of complete lack of respect for public opinion on the part of the political elite, coupled to the media's increasing failure to expose and confront such collapses of integrity, this situation is surely a perfect example of the vicious circle lying at the heart of the steady degradation of public faith in the political system.

Long saga

Last week's EU summit - together with Wednesday's announcement of the 2nd October as the date on which Ireland will hold a repeat referendum - has set the stage for the next big showdown in the saga of the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty.

It's worth remembering that this is a saga that goes all the way back to the Laeken Declaration of 2001 which, despite some commendable decentralising recommendations, gave rise to the highly centralising EU Constitution.

That Laeken proved not to be worth the paper it was written on when it came, subsequently, to the legal expression of how the EU would proceed is perhaps a useful example of how influential such 'declarations' by Europe's heads of state or government truly are over the EU's eventual direction.

Having been born, ultimately, of one worthless declaration by European leaders, it would be extraordinary if the Lisbon Treaty were approved by the Irish people on the basis of another.

Since Laeken, in a period when European countries have had many rather more pressing economic and social concerns deserving of their attention, huge amounts of political capital has instead been wasted by European leaders trying to manoeuvre greater power for the EU's institutions past a succession of reluctant peoples.

Before even looking at the tactics used, the potential progress in other economic and social areas that this elite obsession with the EU has cost should be considered a scandal in itself.

This is a saga of a treaty that, if today's political leaders had any respect for democracy, should have died many years ago.

Instead, their bizarre, antiquated obsession with a 1950s European State ideology apparently trumps all. When that seems even to include democracy, we enter very dangerous territory indeed.

Weak declarations

So back it comes again. Having been rejected overwhelmingly by the French and the Dutch, repackaged, rejected again by the only country given a say on the re-named version, now back it comes to Ireland accompanied by some 'declarations'.

Set out in the official conclusions of last week's EU summit, these declarations are aimed at addressing the concerns of just enough 'No' voters on such matters as Ireland's Commissioner, military neutrality, tax and policy on abortion.

Yet, as discussed in a previous posting, the Lisbon Treaty is not needed to ensure that Ireland retain a Commissioner. Not that Commissioners represent their country in any case, the terms of their office requiring that they commit to "acting in the interests of the Union as a whole and not taking instructions from national governments".

The declaration on neutrality is extremely weak, in that it only assures Ireland's right to choose the "nature" of its assistance to another country rather than whether the country wishes to take sides in a military incident at all.

Moves to harmonise business tax rates have long been on the EU agenda even without Lisbon. So the assurance that the Lisbon Treaty makes no change to the "extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation" rings more than a little hollow.

And according to the EU's own Eurobarometer poll, the number of people who voted out of concern over EU intereference in Irish family policy such as on abortion was very small indeed (2%).

That same poll showed that a far larger proportion of 'No' voters did so to "protect Irish identity" (12%), because they're against a unified Europe (5%), are concerned about the influence of big EU member countries versus the small (7%) or because they don't trust their politicians (6%).

But there's little that can be done to ameliorate the Lisbon Treaty's effects and buy off 'No' voters on these fronts, as all EU treaties are in fact specifically designed to steadily reduce the political identity and influence of Europe's nation states and advance in their place a single political structure in Europe for all major decision-making.

Critical or meaningless?

Depending on which country's politicians you listen to, these declarations are either of critical importance, change everything and justify a whole new referendum (Ireland).

Or are effectively meaningless, change nothing and there's no need for the treaty to be re-opened (Britain and other countries who have denied their peoples a say).

While current polls in Ireland show a majority now ready to vote 'Yes', that was also the case in the run up to the vote last time around.

It's also clear that many of the recent poll questions have been framed as to make anything other than a 'Yes' answer utterly unreasonable, designed as a political initiative to build momentum behind that view rather than to accurately measure it.

Legal questions

Currently the declarations have the legal force of an agreement between national leaders under international law. Yet what has been agreed by leaders can, in principle, be unpicked by leaders alone at a later stage. Long after people have voted, and beyond public control.

Declarations on this legal basis alone can offer little reassurance that they will be respected.

So the stated intention is - after the referendum - to give the declarations greater legal weight by attaching them as a protocol to the next accession treaty admitting a new country to the EU.

Croatia is often mentioned as the most likely candidate, but its membership talks are mired in difficulty over a border dispute with Slovenia and deadlines for joining seem to be disappearing ever further into the future.

There's also the matter that such an accession treaty will not appear until after June 2010, from which point the Conservatives may be in government and responsible for its ratification - Lisbon protocol and all. Whether such a treaty will gain majority support in Parliament at that time must remain a doubt.

So in addition to their limited relevance, whether these declarations will ever gain sufficient legal validity to justify the Lisbon Treaty being given advance approval must remain a significant concern when Irish voters once again go to the polls.

Shadow-boxing over constitutional reform

2009-06-10T16:19:00.010+01:00

Westminster has today been discussing the subject of 'constitutional renewal', prompted by a statement by Gordon Brown.

Yet when a significant proportion of Britain's laws now derive from remote EU institutions - against which a large majority so recently voted during an EU-specific election - Gordon Brown doesn't seem to think the EU even worth mentioning as part of the problem of how to reconnect politics with the public.

Throughout a statement that threw in every possible distraction - from holding a consultation on changing the voting system to the establishment of some new quango to supervise MPs - the EU didn't get one mention.

On the one hand, Brown claims, he wants the "devolution of power". This, he concludes, will lead to the "engagement of people themselves in their local communities."

But on the other, via the Lisbon Treaty, he's clearly happy to see ever more decision-making centralised in remote EU institutions in Brussels - in the process denying us a promised say - and can't see why that's causing people to disengage from Westminster politics.

"Let us stand together for integrity and democracy", he concluded - after setting out how he plans to ignore the key message of the recent European parliament election.

Instead of a proper acknowledgment of the EU's role in draining away the standing of parliament and sterilising Westminster debate, today we had the government's attempt to change the subject.

Expenses myth

The idea that last week's election wasn't really about the EU at all, but a protest vote about MPs' expenses or other aspects of how parliament works, doesn't stack up.

First, despite their MPs being arguably as badly affected by the revelations as Labour - think duck ponds and moats - the Conservative vote actually went up.

Second, the Lib Dems - a party that was deemed to have come out better from the expenses scandal, but which connived with Labour to deny us the promised referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - saw their vote drop.

Where is the quest here to punish all the Westminster parties? But the message on the EU - on the Lisbon Treaty - is crystal clear.

Those opposed to today's EU were up. Those who support the status quo - who actively blocked us being given a say on passing more power to the EU - took a hit.

Not listening

That's why today's statement couldn't be a worse response for Labour's prospects at the next election.

It couldn't be worse because it's increasingly hard to imagine that no-one in government recognises how much of a problem in our democratic system the scale of the EU's powers is now causing - and how much people want to see that change.

Rather, it shows, no-one wants to put that key problem right.

That isn't reducing the 'disconnect' between public and politics. It's making it so much worse.

People have spoken - now it's 'do or die' for Brown

2009-06-08T19:56:00.005+01:00

Gordon Brown may have survived trial by Labour MPs, as seems to be the news emerging from this evening's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

But he has not yet saved himself from public opinion.

The media have spent today wallowing in the twin themes of the election of two BNP candidates as MEPs and further debate about Gordon Brown's leadership of the Labour party.

These may well be the most controversial outcomes for commentators, but ultimately they are side-shows.

The danger the media must avoid is that the overall message delivered by voters is overlooked.

The glaring message from yesterday is that people want less EU integration, not more. Overwhelming support was given to a wide range of parties representing all sides of the political spectrum that oppose the Lisbon Treaty.

The spotlight must now shift on to how Gordon Brown intends to deliver what people have clearly said they want.

Not only are Labour MPs, according to those coming out of tonight's meeting, asking how their party can reconnect with the public, and what policy changes are needed to achieve this.

But also millions of people will be watching closely in the coming days to detect whether, after the uproar against our political leaders that has built over recent weeks, Westminster is finally listening.

It's all about Lisbon

As we've said already, the only response that addresses all prevailing political problems is for Gordon Brown to immediately rescind Britain's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

The treaty is not only an issue that, more than any other - due to the conspicuously broken manifesto promises of a referendum - speaks to problems of trust between governors and the governed.

As we will show tomorrow, the treaty's emergence in October 2007 actually kick-started the disconnect between Gordon Brown and the public that has today grown to a critical condition.

But it also speaks directly to questions of the degradation of Parliament and consequent falling public faith in our democratic system - a trend that was exacerbated by the recent MPs' expenses scandal.

So tomorrow the story must shift on to what Brown is going to do at the looming EU summit on 18-19 June to deliver on the message of this election - and deliver convincingly enough to stand a chance of saving himself at the next general election.

To go to that summit and do anything other than rescind the Lisbon Treaty is unthinkable in terms of his own fate, the fate of the Labour party and the fate of public faith in our political system.

Having seemingly survived trial by Labour MPs, Brown has 10 days to rescue his future in the court of public opinion.

Brown must act on 'less EU' election verdict

2009-06-07T19:03:00.004+01:00

Updated Monday 8 June: 13:06

The European Parliament election has been won overwhelmingly by the 'less EU' parties of varying degrees.

The Conservatives, UKIP, Greens, Libertas, the trade union-backed No2EU and many other smaller parties who took over 63% of the vote all think, at least, that the transfer of decision-making to the EU has gone too far and that radical restructuring of the EU and our relationship with it is needed.

They all oppose the Lisbon Treaty and support a referendum. They all want to see decision-making returned from the EU to the more responsive national, or more local, level.

Votes for these parties outnumbered considerably those cast for the duplicitous New Labour and Lib Dems, who have shown themselves happy to surrender ever more decision-making to EU institutions and to deny us a say over that process - breaking clear election promises in the process.

These are the parties who have shown in their behaviour over the Lisbon Treaty that they don't want to govern. And people have taken this first chance since those events to fulfil their wish.

All-important response

The implications of how the votes have been shared out between the parties - if any of substance - can be debated later. What matters is how Gordon Brown and the government will respond.

It matters to us, but most of all it matters for Brown himself.

Because at this highly sensitive time for faith our political system, people are desperate for evidence that our leaders are listening. And in just 10 days time Gordon Brown will have a clear opportunity on a grand stage to show that he has heard us speak.

Following today's result, Brown has a choice of whether to go to the next meeting of the European Council on 18-19 June and conspicuously represent the people's verdict. Less integration, not more.

Or, despite the clear message of this election, indulge with his fellow members of Europe's political elite in another EU bout of 'carry on regardless'.

Carry on conspiring to bully the Irish people into voting twice on exactly the same rejected treaty - the document that, according to the respected House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, is "substantially equivalent" to the EU Constitution that was also rejected by the French and Dutch peoples.

Carry on overlooking EU waste, fraud and pre-recession levels of lavish living while the rest of us tighten our belts.

Carry on believing that Britain's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, marred by broken manifesto promises, holds any real democratic legitimacy.

Gordon faces two paths, with two very different destinations.

At the end of one stands a chance of rebuilding public faith in our political system and, alongside, bringing himself personally back from the political brink.

At the end of the other lies a further degradation in his already low levels of support, bringing on the leadership challenge that would surely end his stint as Prime Minister.

Rescind Lisbon - get powers back

For Brown to see today's result and, mere days later, be complicit in moves pushing political integration still further - such as trying to manoeuvre Ireland into voting twice on the Lisbon Treaty - would be an extraordinary two-fingered salute to voters just at a time when faith in our political system is at an all time low.

If Brown chooses to show he is listening - and there can be no doubt that his own personal future as Prime Minister now depends absolutely on him doing so - he must rescind our ratification of the Lisbon Treaty while he still can, and start the process of getting powers back. He must go to that 18 June summit and be bold in demanding radical change.

In doing so he would start the process of making our Parliament matter again.

Our political system simply will not stand another incidence of a clear public verdict being ignored. It's clear that people are sick of politicians who think they know best. Brown has a chance to act, to act decisively, and on the side of the majority expressed opinion in these elections.

The summit will be Gordon Brown's last chance. Whether he chooses a response that brings him back from the brink, or one that seals his political fate, is in his hands alone over the next few days.

New campaign: Not Liberal - Not Democrats!

2009-05-13T17:26:00.012+01:00

The Liberal Democrat bid to increase its tally of MEPs at the forthcoming European Parliament election took an early knock yesterday, with the launch of a hard-hitting new attack campaign by the Democracy Movement.

The DM has announced plans to blast the party as "Not Liberal - Not Democrats" in some of its most vulnerable seats, over the actions of leading party figures on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

In particular, the campaign has been launched in defence of Ireland's democratic 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty. Leading Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson has pledged to use taxpayers' money he and his colleagues will receive from the European Parliament to help the Irish and EU political elite bully the Irish people into reversing a clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty given in last year's referendum.

Speaking on behalf of all ALDE group MEPs in the European Parliament, Watson recently told the Irish Times that it "would be our great pleasure" to help the Irish government fund a major campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty in the repeat referendum that the country is being pressured to stage this autumn.

Ireland's vote was the only referendum any people in Europe have had on the Lisbon Treaty, its "substantially equivalent" predecessor - the EU Constitution - having also been rejected overwhelmingly by the French and Dutch peoples in 2005.

Watson's pledge makes a vote for the Lib Dems on 4th June a vote to disregard the previous referendum result and to bully the Irish people into reversing it.

Succession of affronts

But the campaign on the Lib Dems follows what the DM is calling "a succession of affronts to democracy and civil liberties" by the party, caused by their enthusiasm for handing ever more decision-making to the EU.

They amount to a stark conflict between the party's claimed values and actions that can no longer be allowed to pass largely unnoticed by voters.

Not only did the Lib Dems vote to approve the highly illiberal and anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty, but at every stage of the treaty's progress through Parliament the Lib Dems did what it took - abstaining in the Commons and voting against in the Lords - to prevent us being given the EU referendum they promised us at the last general election.

That's why the campaign has been called Not Liberal - Not Democrats.

'Double whammy' roadshow

A giant mobile poster bearing the Lib Dem logo and the campaign slogan (pictured above) is set to be deployed throughout May and early June. The roadshow will be accompanied by targetted local leafleting, letter-writing campaigns by DM activists and other activities.

The 'double whammy' campaign will rove Graham Watson's South West euro constituency, amongst other places, also visiting the most marginal Westminster seats of Lib Dem MPs who broke their promises and refused to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution.

These will include Chris Huhne - Shadow Home Secretary (Eastleigh, Maj: 568), Jeremy Browne - Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Taunton, Maj: 573), Paul Burstow - Chief Whip (Sutton & Cheam, Maj: 2846) and Julia Goldsworthy - Shadow Communities and Local Government (Falmouth & Camborne, Maj: 1886).

Twenty of the Lib Dem MPs who refused to support a referendum - almost a third of the parliamentary party - are in vulnerable Westminster seats with majorities of under 5,000.

Clegg ambushed

The campaign kicked off yesterday with a leafleting picket of the official Lib Dem Euro-Election campaign launch, forcing Nick Clegg to cancel a planned outdoor TV interview and to dodge our giant poster as he came and went from the venue.

Having ratted on the referendum they promised in their last manifesto, the Lib Dems now say that they support a wider 'In / Out' referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU.

But given the party's recent failure to deliver on an EU referendum promise written in their general election manifesto, it's not clear how they think their alleged support for a different referendum can be believed.

Even if they do now support a wider referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU, and would actually vote in support of one should an opportunity in Parliament arise, there's no reason why that should have precluded people being consulted in the meantime on whether more powers should be passed to the EU or not.

If fact, the logical action if you believe Britain's relationship with the EU is now at a such a stage that it should be reviewed via referendum is to block any further power transfers until that consultation is conducted.

That's what makes this 'new' referendum idea looks like typical politicians' spin, attempting to confuse people and disguise the fact that the Lib Dems do not support people being consulted about the EU's powers at all.

Please use our 'Order leaflets' link (above right) to request some copies of our campaign flyer. A pdf of the leaflet can be seen here. You can keep up with the latest info about the campaign by joining the Not Liberal - Not Democrats group on Facebook, or by signing up for the eBulletin on the DM's main website.

South West MEP presses Gordon Brown to scrap the pound

2009-03-27T13:17:00.011Z

The South West's only Liberal Democrat MEP, Graham Watson, seems to be on a quest for maximum unpopularity.

And on current form he might just end up taking the whole Lib Dem campaign for the European Parliament elections down with him.

During the Prime Minister's visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week - on the first leg of his pre-G20 'world tour' - Watson used his regulation three minutes speaking time to press Gordon Brown to take Britain into the euro.

Responding to Gordon Brown's address to MEPs, Watson said that he expected the single currency to "emerge stronger from this crisis" and asked the Prime Minister "Will you now work to bring the United Kingdom into the euro in the post-recession period?"

Euro problem

Ever allowing his starry-eyed enthusiasm for EU centralisation to cloud sound economic judgement, Watson's call came despite almost daily evidence that the inflexibility of the euro has exacerbated a boom-bust cycle in some countries and is now making the recession worse for its members.

Neither has the euro prevented banking crises and the need for bailouts among member countries.

Ireland's construction-led economy has collapsed so spectacularly that a leading Irish economist has warned that the country may have to quit the euro. Unemployment in Spain has grown to over 3 million and, in the eurozone as a whole, is at its highest for more than two years.

Markets fear debt defaults in Italy and Greece, where debt has risen to huge proportions of GDP. And European Central Bank president, Jean-Claude Trichet, has admitted that the currency bloc is under "extreme strain".

Both Greece and France have already seen major public protests against insufficient action by their governments to relieve the effects of the recession - governments that simply can't afford to replace with cash bailouts and 'stimulus packages' what a drop in the value of their currency would deliver.

Even arch EU fanatic and former European Commission president Jacques Delors admits to pessimism about the euro's future.

This is what Graham Watson MEP bizarrely wants to embroil us in.

It's little wonder that the EU has recently been pushing for the IMF's resources to be increased dramatically, likely hoping that the emergency funding body will help to bail out those countries suffering the worst inside the euro straightjacket.

How much Britain and other EU countries who have wisely kept control of their economies will be asked to splash out via the IMF towards papering over the euro's widening economic cracks remains to be seen.

Sterling boost

Of course, Britain has similar economic problems to those being suffered by other European countries mentioned above.

But thanks to our flexible exchange rate as a result of keeping the pound, Britain's goods and services have at least been made considerably more competitive in world markets right when we needed it most.

The benefit of British exports becoming cheaper due to the recent fall in the value of the pound means that businesses selling to the eurozone have been given a timely boost that would not have been possible had we joined the euro when people like Mr Watson were first campaigning for that change years ago.

Had we followed his advice back then, British companies would today be locked into a fixed exchange rate with the eurozone and facing greater pressure to make cuts to wage costs and jobs instead - just like those inside the euro.

Real lessons

In the face of this recent overwhelming reminder of how unpredictable economic conditions can be, Mr Watson's perverse view seems to be that we should lock ourselves into the 'one-size-fits-none' euro and give up control of key economic levers like our interest and exchange rates.

Not for him has the crisis illuminated, in reality, how critical it is to retain maximum economic flexibility to respond to rapidly changing conditions.

That, of course, can only be achieved by keeping the pound.

No surprise, then, that public opinion remains strongly against Britain joining the euro.

A BBC poll at the start of the year showed that, despite the economic troubles, 71% of people would vote against Britain joining if it were put to a referendum.

Not liberal - Not democrat

Watson's controversial euro demand follows a pledge earlier this month to help Ireland's ruling political party fund a second 'Yes' campaign in any new vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

A second referendum is predicted for this autumn, following the Treaty's rejection by Irish voters last year.

Given Watson tops the list of his party's candidates in the South West, anyone in Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Devon, Cornwall or Gibraltar voting for the Liberal Democrats is essentially voting to re-elect him.

So far, such a vote stands not just for bullying the Irish people into reversing their clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty, but also for scrapping the pound.

And there's very little either liberal or democratic about that.

Lords flop as EU 'snoopers charter' is approved

2009-03-25T14:37:00.026Z

An EU Directive forcing the recording of data relating to every email sent and every website visited cleared a final hurdle towards becoming law yesterday.

In the process, the House of Lords revealed itself, sadly, to be an almost complete waste of space when it comes to holding the government to acceptable democratic practice and providing some form of check and balance against extreme and unnecessary laws.

A Communications Data Bill enforcing the blanket retention of data about everyone's internet and email usage was shelved back in October after additional plans it contained to collate the information in a huge central database came under heavy fire from the Information Commissioner, the (now former) Director of Public Prosecutions and the Government's own reviewer of terrorism laws.

Back door law

Under pressure from the EU to implement by 15 March the data retention elements of the Bill that were required by the EU Directive, the government schemed to enforce retention by the back door via a Statutory Instrument.

Yesterday, that draft Statutory Instrument (hat tip Open Europe for the link) made an appearance in the House of Lords.

According to an accompanying article yesterday on ConservativeHome by Shadow Security Minister, Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, the Tories are opposed to the plans.

Sadly, that's not so much on the grounds that the blanket storage of the everyday web and email activity of millions of law-abiding people is wrong and unnecessary in principle.

Merely, it seems, on the grounds of concern about who will have access to it.

Nevertheless, Neville-Jones wrote; "I have tabled a motion calling on the Government to withdraw this instrument and bring forward primary legislation on the retention of communications data that will enable detailed – and rigorous – Parliamentary scrutiny to take place."

'No show' peers scandal

But when it came to the vote on her motion, the Baroness was unfortunately just four votes short. Consequently, the regulations were approved.

Bad enough in itself. But it's when you look at the voting record that the tale becomes utterly exasperating.

The Tory motion to strike down the regulations was supported by 55 Conservatives (out of 197 Conservative peers in total), 12 Crossbenchers (out of 205), and 18 (out of 72) Lib Dems. Together with two UKIP peers and one Independent Labour, plus a Bishop, that was 89.

Four Crossbenchers voted with 89 Labour peers, making 93 in support of the regulations as they stood.

This reveals that 196 opposition peers didn't vote (nevermind 189 Crossbenchers), yet the blocking motion failed by just four.

What a complete shambles.

Setting this number against the 127 Labour peers who also didn't vote (but would presumably have voted in favour of the regulations), blocking these sinister communications snooping plans was on the face of it eminently winnable.

Had a few more of the missing 196 opposition peers bothered to turn up.

Explanations needed

So where exactly were our 'noble' peers?

Given the critical nature of this vote - due to a toxic combination of the excessive snooping content of the regulations and the undemocratic 'EU-plus-Statutory Instrument' way in which they were being imposed - the scale on which people have been failed democratically by Conservative and Lib Dem peers is considerable.

An urgent explanation is required from those parties as to what on earth happened that so few of their peers were present and an opportunity to block these sinister regulations was squandered.

Broken democracy

It's hard to conclude anything from the progress of these communications data retention regulations but that our so-called democratic system is today broken - virtually ineffective.

To twist an old slogan, Westminster isn't working.

The combination of the blanket monitoring content of these proposals and the undemocratic way in which they have been imposed makes this an issue that doesn't only impinge seriously on our liberties but, worse, brings the whole idea of credible democracy still existing here in Britain, and indeed Europe, into further disrepute.

The political elite, it seems, can get away with doing anything, and in any shady way, yet hardly anyone in Westminster - parliamentarians or even the media - appears to be especially interested.

And then they wonder why so few people, in response, are interested in voting when it comes to elections.

Urgent need for change

Unless this erosion of democracy is soon stemmed, only radical change to our democratic structures - not merely a change of faces at the top - will be able to rebuild faith in responsive government.

This EU path that Britain and Europe are currently travelling of remote, ever more centralised law-making together with increasingly powerless - and perhaps therefore frequently absent - national parliamentarians, cannot lead to an appealing destination.

Healthy and responsive democracy is the only true guarantor of stability and prosperity on our continent, whatever the occupants of several lavish glass palaces in Brussels may like to tell themselves about their grandiose, 1950s-styled superstate project.

Refusal by so many of our MPs to recognise how democracy is being downtrodden by the EU - to recognise how serious are the dangers of the malaise its methods are spreading throughout the post-war European democracies that have ensured over sixty years of peace - cannot go on.

New No2EU 'party' launches for Euro Elections

2009-03-19T10:03:00.000Z

This morning another new and interesting entrant to the 4 June European Parliament elections has been launched in a House of Commons meeting room.

Called No2EU - Yes to Democracy, the "EU-critical electoral alliance" describes itself as a "new trade union-backed electoral platform of progressive campaigning groups".

Chairing the new platform of candidates is Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union chief Bob Crow, providing in the form of the RMT's over 80,000 members a level of backing that could give the platform a massive head start in local-level campaigning.

Joining the RMT in the alliance are leading figures in the CWU, T&G and Unison unions, Trade Unionists Against the EU Constitution and the Liberal Party.

The political stance of the group is a combination of opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and the EU-led privatisation of public services, support for workers' rights and protest at the corrupt EU gravy train.

On this last point - most interestingly of the Euro Elections launches so far - the group is pledging not to take their seats as MEPs, should they win any.

Other areas of interest include EU militarisation and the EU's assault on civil liberties.

In the context of high levels of opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and disgust over the treatment of Ireland after their 'No' vote, the recent Lindsey oil refinery strikes about the exclusion of British workers in favour of foreign labour, recent renewed attempts to privatise the Royal Mail to meet the requirements of the EU's postal services Directives, and high levels of public irritation about politicians milking excessive expenses, the No2EU platform has huge potential.

By further openly admitting that little of consequence towards their objectives can be changed from the "expensive fraud" European Parliament and refusing to cash in anyway by taking up any million-pound MEP seats they win, the No2EU alliance also has a powerful opportunity to be seen as the most trustworthy and reliable of those on the ballot paper bidding for the anti-EU vote.

The result may be that the group could slide neatly into a productive, left-leaning niche comprised of traditional Labour supporters, former Lib Dem voters dismayed by Nick Clegg's failure to support a promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty plus the recent Lib Dem pledge to help bully the Irish people into reversing their clear 'No' to Lisbon, together with any naturally left-leaning or even simply disillusioned UKIP voters.

Altogether, No2EU - Yes to Democracy looks to be the 'party' to watch in the run up to the 4 June vote.

Libertas launch Euro-Election campaign

2009-03-10T11:56:00.008Z

Libertas have today announced that they will be standing candidates in Britain for the European Parliament elections on 4 June.

Founded by businessman Declan Ganley, Libertas played a key role in the successful 'No' campaign to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland's referendum last year.

Now a pan-EU political party, planning to stand candidates in all 27 EU member countries in the forthcoming Euro Elections, Libertas today announced their UK leader - Robin Matthews, a former soldier. But they have not yet published a manifesto.

Electoral challenges

Ganley has claimed repeatedly that he is not a 'eurosceptic'. His frequent recitations of long discredited pro-EU mantras about the EU's benefits have portrayed Libertas as aiming for position to the pro-EU side of the Tories.

While Ganley has also repeatedly made some very good points about the EU's impact on democracy, electorally it's hard to see where such a position leaves Libertas in this country.

With a resolutely pro-EU outlook, Libertas certainly aren't likely to attract many UKIP votes. Those who still remain loyal to the Tories during Euro Elections are likely to stay that way, especially given their party's similar anti-Lisbon / pro-referendum stance.

Libertas might well scrape some votes from the Lib Dems and Labour but that's unlikely to get them very far.

Nevertheless, as we saw from the Kilroy bandwagon during the 2004 Euro Elections, anything can happen if you can attract a couple of celebrities. Especially if, like Ganley, you also have plenty of cash.

There are undoubtedly opportunities for Libertas in other countries such as Germany or Belgium where a mainstream EU-critical / pro-referendum party has never been an option for voters.

Mixed messages

Such positioning problems here in Britain may be the reason why postings today on the Libertas website paint a rather different picture of the party's stance compared to Declan Ganley's previous statements.

They say little that British eurosceptics would disagree with.

In particular, under the headline "Why vote Libertas UK", it says: "We want to return powers to Britain and take back control of our own destiny."

But it is the impression that messages are being tailored - in conflicting directions - for different national audiences that remains a worry. It's unclear where that leaves the claim that "Libertas voters in Germany, France, Bulgaria and all the other states will be voting for the same thing as you."

Perhaps the manifesto, when it comes, will illuminate how the apparently conflicting ideas of being a pro-EU party that supports taking back powers to nation states come together.

The big question for prospective voters is: which does Libertas mean? If elected to the European Parliament, which outlook would prevail overall?

Lib Dem pledge to bully Ireland over Lisbon

2009-03-06T17:07:00.009Z

A vote for the Liberal Democrats at the European Parliament elections on 4 June is a vote to bully the Irish people into reversing their clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty.

That's the message being sent today by Graham Watson MEP, according to this article in the Irish Times.

As the leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, Watson has pledged "to help fund a major campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty" when the Irish government calls a second referendum, which is expected in the autumn.

Expressing his group's support for the Irish government and EU elite plan to ignore the previous referendum result and make the Irish people vote a second time on the same treaty, Mr Watson said "It would be our great pleasure to support Fianna Fáil if they wanted us to, either in the referendum campaign in the autumn or any other campaign".

Watson tops the Liberal Democrat list of candidates for the South-West of England euro-constituency, which covers Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Devon and Cornwall, and which also includes Gibraltar.

Credibility chasm

In the article, Mr Watson also rehearses the inevitable scare-mongering that a second 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty would force Ireland to leave the EU - a line so weak that its lack of credibility is far more likely to be a hindrance to securing a 'Yes' vote in any referendum than a help.

"It is very difficult to see any country being able to stay in if they have had two Nos from the people," he burbles. Not so difficult for anyone who has read the EU treaty, however.

The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified by every single EU member country, it doesn't become law, and the EU continues to exist - and every country continues to be a member of the EU - on the basis of the current, post-Nice, treaty.

That contains no clause under which a member country can be thrown out of the EU.

Any decision as to the extent of Ireland's participation in the European Union after a second 'No' vote will be entirely down to the Irish government.

Unless Watson is revealing that it is the position of Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, that he will take Ireland out of the EU altogether if there is a second 'No' vote, then Watson is either blowing smoke or exposing his ignorance.

Time for change

In truth, a second 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty from Ireland would be a welcome earthquake for the entire EU structure as we know it today. And Ireland would be far from alone in administering that much-needed shake of the foundations.

Not only has the Polish president said that he will not sign the Lisbon Treaty into law until Ireland has settled its position, but the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has expressed a similar stance.

The treaty also looks set to remain an outstanding issue in Germany for some months yet, while its impact on the German constitution is studied by that country's constitutional court.

What's more, by May 2010 a Conservative government may be in power in Britain with the policy of rescinding Britain's ratification of the treaty if it has not yet been approved by every other EU member country.

But before the events of the autumn and spring 2010 unfold, Graham Watson perhaps ought to be more concerned about how popular his support for bullying the Irish people into reversing their already clearly expressed view on the Lisbon Treaty is going to be with South West voters, come the elections on 4 June.

Denis MacShane and the 'Euro-McCarthyites'

2009-02-25T18:36:00.020Z

DM campaign director Marc Glendening has branded the MP and interminable EU-obsessive Denis MacShane (left) a 'Euro-McCarthyite', following an article the former Europe minister wrote for the Guardian about the recent protests at the Lindsey oil refinery.

Marc's broadside against MacShane was published on the popular Conservative-centred blog ConservativeHome - here below is the unedited version.

---------------------------------------------------------

DENIS MACSHANE AND THE 'EURO-McCARTHYITES'

The former Europe minister and arch New Labourite buffoon Denis MacShane has been up to his old 'EU-McCarthyite' tricks again.

In a recent Guardian On-Line article he attempted to obscure the key issue underlying the strike at the Lindsey oil refinery plant with a typical New Labour smokescreen.

Instead of tackling the key democractic question of who ultimately should determine employment policy in Britain, and on what terms foreign nationals should be allowed to work here, the MP for Rotherham hurled abuse at anybody who has had the audacity to take a position contrary to his own.

Instead of there being 'reds under the bed' he wants the British people to start out with the assumption that all EU-sceptics - whether they support the international free movement of labour or not - are really 'xenophobes in the closet' (or wherever he thinks we like to conceal ourselves).

So, William Hague has, according to MacShane, engaged in 'vulgar anti-European xenohobia'. No evidence is given of the usually mild-mannered shadow foreign secretary having done so. In fact, on the specific question of whether IREM should be allowed to bring in Italian posted workers, Hague holds exactly the same view as MacShane.

Cowardly mud-slinging

Labour MPs who supported the strikers and/or questioned the EU Posted Workers Directive were said to have engaged in 'nationalist-protectionist rhetoric'. Again, and in a rather cowardly fashion, MacShane did not name names. Was he possibly thinking of John Cruddas who has made, in highly temperate terms, criticisms of the way the Single Market is working regarding his party's tradional support base? If not him, who exactly, Mr MacShane?

Then the author, of course, had to have a go at the Daily Mail. I have debated MacShane and he never fails to spend at least a third of any speech ranting about the supposed evils of this paper. It's not my favourite reading matter of a morning either, but his obsession with it is rather bewildering.

According to him on this occasion, the paper has run a campaign of 'hate against non-Brits' (my emphasis). A very serious allegation. But again, not backed-up with any examples. It would be interesting to see what would happen if he does get unexpectedly brave and specify a journalist he believes has engaged in 'hate speech'.

Challenged to name names

I have written to him asking him to produce concrete examples to support these claims. I am not expecting a response. My real motivation in doing so is to help draw attention to the the pathological and poisonous campaign that many pro-EU advocates - particularly those in New Labour - have been running for several years now. Expect it to intensify the closer we get to the European elections. I want the waging of this type of dirty politics to itself become an issue.

MacShane has form here. Back in August 2004, when Europe minister, he claimed in an interview with the Daily Telegraph that EU-sceptics were 'motivated by a [yes, you guessed it] xenophobic hatred against the Germans or the French'.

I'm half-French, so does this mean, according to his logic, that I must detest, or possibly fear, at least 50% of myself as a necessary corollary of being opposed to the single currency and the CAP? Did MacShane have in mind those notorious Germano/Francophobes Frank Field and Michael Portillo when he said what he did?

More serious characters than MacShane have also recently been joining in the act: cue Peter Mandelson and Keith Vaz. Just as Senator McCarthy's campaign smeared a whole host of people who were mildly (and democratically) left-wing so as to prevent them being listened to by putting them beyond the pail of 1950s American polite society, so the EU-McCarthyites want all centre ground voters and mainstream media people to dismiss serious arguments put forward by those dare to question the post-democratic system of government emerging in Brussels.

Sinister intolerance

The new post-modern left, unlike its rationalist, socialist predecessors, uses culture war to intimidate opponents from advancing inconvenient positions and to prevent a proper debate based upon empirical reality from taking place.

EU-McCarthyism is an indication of the sinister intolerance with which many in New Labour and within the broader pro-EU movement now treat any manifestation of serious opposition.

Centralising ever more power in Brussels is one issue, like immigration, where the masses are simply not entitled to oppose the New Political Class. That's why the MacShanes were so adamant that nobody should be allowed to have a vote on the EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty.

When the French had the temerity to say 'no' they were castigated by the likes of Neil Kinnock who, without apparent irony, called the result 'a triumph of ignorance'. The fragrant Chris Bryant said it was OK for people to vote for the X Factor, but not about serious constitutional issues. Have you heard a single member of the New Political Class criticise the decision to disregard the result of the Irish referendum and re-run the contest because the result was not to the liking of the EU and Dublin establishments?

Democracy feared

An indication of the distrust with which the new left now views the traditional supporters of the Labour party, and the British people in general, was indicated by Denis MacShane in the Telegraph interview referred to above. In it he said that the British 'have got a dark streak of xenophobia and racism in our [he, of course, meant their] mentality'.

It would have been interesting to see the reaction in the Guardian had he attributed a mass state of mind and similar negative characteristics to another national or ethnic population group. This extraordinary quote is testimony to the political and cultural disconnect that now exists between the new left elite and the mass of ordinary Labour voters.

No doubt in the run-up to the European elections we will hear a lot of pious sounding cant from the Labour party about the danger of the BNP winning seats. They should take a good look at themselves in relation to this prospect, but no doubt William Hague and the Daily Mail will still be accused of having 'sewn the seeds' of populist fascism.

MacShane's insulting statement about the mentality of the British people also demonstrates why the bourgeois new left, like some nineteenth century Tories before them, fundamentally now fear the concept of democracy and will do everything to try to limit its exercise (without having the honesty to openly admit this, naturally).

Castigating EU-sceptics who are exposing to the British people the parallel system of government we now live under as 'xenophobes' is one of the ways the EU-McCarthyists do this. It's pay-back time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Article by Marc Glendening

Back door law for EU's email and web data storage plan

2009-01-13T15:02:00.010Z

Draconian, EU-driven plans to require the collection and storage of data relating to every website visited and
e-mail sent are set to be made law in Britain through the back door without Parliamentary debate.

Once passed into law it will not be possible for a future Parliament to reverse this legislation as EU law is supreme.

The requirements of EU Directive 2006/24/EC "on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services" were due to be enacted through a Communications Data Bill, scheduled for inclusion in November's Queen's Speech - as first highlighted by the DM back in June.

But the Bill was shelved following heavy criticism of the plans by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, the Information Commissioner and a range of civil liberties groups.

No debate

However, in order to meet the implementation deadline of 15 March 2009 stipulated in the EU Directive, the government is preparing to enact the plans by Statutory Instrument, which are not normally debated by MPs.

Annex B of this Home Office consultation paper(pdf) about the plans sets out the draft Statutory Instrument (SI) to be "laid before Parliament under Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972."

That paragraph of Schedule 2 of the ECA 1972 specifies that such SIs are "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House". This means that once the SI is laid before the Commons it will become law, but MPs will have 28 (or occasionally 40) days in which to propose a motion calling for its annulment.

However, even if such a motion is supported by opposition parties or a large number of backbench MPs, there is no guarantee that a debate will be permitted.

Heavy criticism

Sir Ken Macdonald, until recently the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the man in charge of prosecuting terrorism in England and Wales, has described the data retention plans as threatening to 'break the back of freedom'.

Giving the Crown Prosecution Service lecture back in October, he said: "We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom's back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state."

His verdict followed Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism laws, who described the "raw idea" for handing over millions of pieces of private information to the state as "awful".

Britain's Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, also warned that the plans were "a step too far for the British way of life".

Quoted in the Daily Telegraph back in August, he said "There needs to be the fullest public debate about the justification for, and implications of, a specially-created database - potentially accessible to a wide range of law enforcement authorities - holding details of everyone's telephone and internet communications."

Anti-terrorism or state control?

Government plans to spin the data retention scheme as a measure to combat terrorism were dealt a further blow in October, when it emerged that the EU Directive on which it is based was passed by qualified majority voting under "internal market" provisions in the EU Treaty, and not in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, which requires unanimity.

Following objections to this move by several EU member countries, EU advocate general Yves Bot said that the Directive "does not contain any provisions liable to come within the notion of 'police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters'," and was primarily an internal market issue.

No authority - no democracy

The absurd opinion by Mr Bot - whose view is followed by the European Court of Justice in 80% of cases - illustrates how the supposed independent arbiters of EU law are prepared to connive with the EU's law-making institutions to force through under completely inappropriate areas of the EU Treaty authoritarian measures which some EU member countries may try to block - if given the chance.

Further, the back door method by which this EU Directive is set to be implemented here in Britain reveals once again what little opportunity for democracy there is in how the EU's law-making powers are exercised.

The way this law has been brought forward first in the EU and now here in Britain is neither legitimate nor democratic.

Lisbon not necessary for Ireland's commissioner

2009-01-08T12:22:00.011Z

So there we have it. It's not necessary for Ireland to swallow the entire Lisbon Treaty - and all the power transfers from the elected Irish government to the EU that it entails - in order to retain an Irish Commissioner.

The Irish Times reports today that the Czech EU presidency is preparing a contingency plan for the composition of the Commission in case Ireland rejects Lisbon for a second time later this year.

In the event of a second 'No' vote, the rules of the EU's existing - post Nice - treaty will stand. They state that if the number of EU member states reaches 27, the number of commissioners would then be reduced.

Czech deputy prime minister Alexander Vondra told the Irish Times, "On the composition of the commission we have to be ready for both possible scenarios: One scenario is that the Lisbon Treaty enters force at the end this year or we have to act and co-operate in the EU under Nice."

In order to meet the requirement that the number of commissioners must be 'at least one less' than the number of member states, a solution now being touted is that all member states maintain a commissioner except for the country that holds the position of EU foreign policy chief.

To gain an advantage in one of the most sensitive areas of debate during the first referendum, the Irish government had already secured an agreement from the EU that the clause in Lisbon enabling all member states to retain a commissioner would be invoked - if the treaty is approved.

But in highlighting the reality that changes to the composition of the Commission to the same effect can be made without the Lisbon Treaty being in force, the Czechs have kicked away the foundations of one of the main propaganda points set to be used by the 'Yes' lobby in their attempt to win the second Irish referendum.