EU heading for 14th successive audit failure

Siim Kallas, the EU Commissioner for "Audit and Anti-Fraud", has pre-empted the forthcoming verdict of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and revealed that the Court will once again refuse to give their approval to the EU's accounts.

The ECA report into the 2007 figures, due 10 November, will make it 14 years in a row in which the EU has failed to have its spending cleared by auditors.

Earlier this year, a majority of MPs unjustifiably approved a government deal to increase Britain's payments to the EU by more than 60%. The deal included giving up £7 billion of Britain's EU rebate between 2007-2013.

As a result of that deal, on average Britain is now paying £6 billion more into the EU budget every year than we get back in grants and subsidies. This is an astonishing £115 million every single week.

European Voice reports that auditors will say they found only a slight improvement in the legality and regularity of EU spending between the financial years 2006 and 2007.

Speaking to MEPs, Kallas admitted that there were “real and unquestioned” weaknesses in 17 areas including research policy, the European refugee fund, structural funds, external actions and rural development.

How many years of EU audit failure will it take before MPs take action to halt this mis-spending of public money on a grand scale?

Until this happens, those MPs who approve of continuing to lavish more than a hundred million pounds a week on the EU despite annual audit failures and regular reports of EU waste and fraud must take full responsibility when public money runs out for essential public services or council tax rises in their constituencies.

Islands give Finland EU treaty problem

The Aland Islands - an autonomous territory of Finland - have joined Ireland, the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland as a further thorn in the EU's side over ratification of the discredited Lisbon Treaty.

According to EUobserver, the government of the Islands is demanding certain concessions from Helsinki in return for ratifying the treaty, on which the 30-member strong Aland parliament is expected to vote this Autumn.

Although Finland has been able to ratify the EU treaty without the consent of the Aland parliament, Finland's minister responsible for the islands - the former MEP Astrid Thors - has said that the Alands' refusal would lead to an "unclear situation."

Finland would be put in the awkward situation of not being able to guarantee the implementation of the treaty throughout the whole of its territory.

The Islands' four demands include direct access to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), a seat in the European Parliament and participation in the work of the Council of Ministers with some control over the (sham) principle of 'subsidiarity'.

But Helsinki is only offering the possibility of Aland being given some sort of speaking rights within the EU, together with the drawing up of "Aland document" that would commit the Finnish government to "listen to Aland's point of view."

Vice-President of the Aland parliament, Susanne Eriksson, also told EurActiv that the Islands' answer on ratification "will depend on what happens to the Treaty overall".

The Islands rejected the original EU Constitution because it was politically dead and Ms Eriksson noted that, following the Irish 'no', they could also consider the Lisbon Treaty to be dead already and decide to reject it for that reason.

The clash stems from upset on the Islands caused recently by the European Commission's demand that the sale of 'snuss', a traditional form of chewing tobacco, be banned.

When the Islanders refused on the grounds that health in the Alands is not controlled by Finnish laws but the Islands' own, the Commission took Finland to the ECJ and imposed a €2 million (£1.6m) fine.

The Aland parliament is expected to hold expert hearings on the treaty into early September.

The confused Norman Baker

The Daily Mail today shouts from its front page that the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, is spearheading a campaign for MPs to ditch their traditional oath of allegiance.

Supporting the campaign purportedly on the grounds that their 'principal duty' should be allegiance to the people who voted for them rather than the Queen are 22 MPs from all three main parties, but reportedly including only a single Conservative.

A full list of these supporting MPs isn't given. Yet what's the betting that most of these sudden adherents to representing their constituents and 'swearing allegiance to the nation' both didn't keep their manifesto promises to support a referendum on the EU Constitution and voted to approve that transfer of more decision-making powers to the EU?

At that time, countless polls showed that a large majority of people wanted a say on the treaty and opposed the transfer of more decision-making to the EU. How many of these MPs were so interested in representing their constituents then?

Norman "it's a matter of democracy" Baker himself certainly wasn't. In line with the instructions of his party leader, Nick Clegg, he didn't bother to vote in support of a referendum on the EU Constitution's "substantially equivalent" successor, the Lisbon Treaty, but he did vote to approve the treaty.

Wouldn't MPs keeping clear promises on which they were elected and taking their own manifestos seriously be a far greater contribution to improving democracy than gimmicky campaigns to tinker with oaths?

Record year for inward investment

The government's trade and investment body - UK Trade and Investment - has revealed that 2007-8 was another highly successful year for Britain in attracting investment from overseas companies.

A record 1,573 investment projects were won in what marks a fifth consecutive year of growth.

According to the figures, 45,051 new jobs were created and a further 58,488 safeguarded as a result of this continuing success.

The results are in stark contrast to the scare-mongering some years ago by the government and pro-euro figures that investment would dry up if we didn't scrap the pound and hand over greater control of the economy to the EU.

Car industry success

During the euro debate, particular focus was placed on whether car manufacturers like Nissan, Honda and Toyota would maintain their operations in Britain if we didn't join the euro.

Not only have they stayed, but they have been increasing their investment in manufacturing operations here.

Back in May 2007, Nissan announced a £4.5m / 4,000 job investment in a new logistics centre at their factory in Sunderland - Europe's most productive car plant. More recently, 800 new jobs were created to support a third shift at the site.

Last year Toyota also announced an £88 million investment (pdf, page 4) to build a new petrol engine at its site in Deeside, North Wales, with production due to start in 2009.

And in March this year, Honda announced an £80 million investment in its manufacturing site in Swindon, where the company makes its Civic and CR-V models.

Vauxhall was another example being touted by the euro lobby of manufacturing at risk. But in 2007 the company announced that the new Astra model (pdf, page 4) would be built at their Ellesmere Port plant.

Since the euro membership debate died, big investments have also been made by German car giant BMW to build the new Mini in Oxford and the new Rolls Royce in Goodwood, and by Ford in their engine plants in Dagenham and Bridgend.

'Ringing endorsement'

Without a hint of self-consciousness about earlier claims, Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton said the results were "a ringing endorsement of the UK as an international investment destination, demonstrating that our compelling mix of a business friendly environment, political and economic stability, world-class talent, and a strong research and development base, is a powerful magnet for overseas companies."

Exactly all the points in Britain's favour that pro-pound groups were making, to argue that inward investment decisions depended far more on factors other than whether we joined the euro.

Lessons learnt?

It's obviously too much to expect for the government to have learnt lessons from such previous debates about the quality of their judgement in relation to the implications for Britain of refusing to hand further powers to the EU.

Having been utterly wrong about Britain's fate if we didn't join the euro, what big steps in EU power centralisation could they be similarly wrong about today?

Ratification update

Stuart Wheeler has lost his High Court case to hold the goverment to its promise of a referendum. While Mr Wheeler has indicated his intention to appeal, the passage in the earlier version of this post about this legal hurdle in the path of final ratification of the treaty by Britain has been deleted.

However, further doubts are emerging that the Polish president is going to sign the treaty, with the office of the president beginning to publicly argue that the treaty is dead following the Irish No. This change is reflected in the updated summary below.

So far that leaves the treaty rejected by referendum in Ireland, its "substantially equivalent" predecessor rejected in public votes in France and Holland, and now ratification put on hold in the Czech Republic and Poland.

This effort by the EU - represented by the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution - to gather more power for itself at the expense of Europe's democratic governments has taken up nearly a decade of governmental wrangling and battling against public opinion that could have been much more profitably spent preparing European countries for major future challenges.

Another year of wrangling is now on the cards while the EU tries to find ways to get the treaty past the Irish people.

Enough is enough. Either the EU must now drop its 1950s superstate ambitions as a result of these multiple rejections of the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution project.

Or those who wish to see Europe make real progress in the face of modern challenges must start exploring new ways and new structures to achieve this beyond the malign influence of the EU's anti-democratic obsession with political integration.

It is self-evident that it is not necessary to pass ever more decision-making powers to remote central institutions for countries to co-operate together on the issues that affect us all.

So for how much longer will the EU's out-dated centralisation agenda be allowed to distract from tackling the issues that European countries really need to address to be fit for the 21st century?

Does Europe have any genuine leaders, with a vision for the future rather than a lazy adherence to ideas of the past? Now is the time for such a person to stand up.

------- Ratification: the state of play (updated) -------

Eight countries have yet to complete ratification of the Lisbon treaty through their Parliaments, with ratification in two further countries still awaiting presidential signatures.

While the treaty may have become law in the rest, it does not come into effect until all 27 EU member countries have ratified it. So here's a run-down of the hurdles the treaty has yet to clear:

Belgium: the treaty has been passed by the country's two houses of parliament and currently awaits approval in Belgium's five regional and community assemblies.

Czech Republic: currently suspended pending a decision of the country's constitutional court on whether the treaty is in line with Czech law. President Vaclav Klaus has spoken out against continued ratification, as has the chairman of the country's senate.

Cyprus: ratification of the treaty is expected to go ahead on 3 July, according to the Cyprus Mail. Only the Green Party has called for a postponement.

Ireland: having voted 'No' a week ago, Irish ministers and leading 'Yes' campaigners have made it clear that due to the high turnout a re-run of the referendum will not be politically possible. Nevertheless, the country will be under considerable pressure from the EU and other member states, who are continuing to ratify the rejected treaty regardless.

Italy: the Italian government has said that it aims to ratify the treaty by August, but there may be complications in the form of the Northern League - a major partner in Silvio Berlusconi's new coalition government. The party says that it intends to present a Bill demanding a referendum, calling the treaty "a serious abandon of sovereignty". However, Berlusconi's party has a significant majority together with its other coalition partner, so a referendum Bill is not expected to succeed.

Netherlands: the Dutch government seems ready to treat Ireland differently to the response they received after their 2005 rejection of the Lisbon Treaty's predecessor - the EU Constitution. Having been approved by the country's parliament earlier this month, despite the presentation of a 42,000-signature petition demanding a second referendum, the treaty is now being considered by the Dutch senate. This is considered a formality and due to be completed over the summer.

Spain: ratification has been held up by a change of government but is likely to be completed, possibly before the end of June. The Spanish government support continued ratification.

Sweden: Reuters report that ratification of the treaty is to continue as planned despite Ireland's 'No' vote. This is according to a statement by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, writing on his blog last Friday. The Swedish parliament will vote on ratification this autumn, and it is expected to receive majority support.

Two further countries which are generally described as having approved the treaty in fact have not absolutely finalised ratification.

In Poland, the treaty was approved by the country's Parliament in April, but Polish president Lech Kaczynski was reportedly waiting until the outcome of the Irish referendum before adding his signature. Influential voices have urged him not to sign and on 23 June fresh doubts emerged that Mr Kaczynski will approve the treaty. According to EUobserver, presidential aide Michal Kaminski told Poland's Radio ZET that "There are a lot of indications that...the Lisbon Treaty today doesn't exist in a legal sense because one of the [EU] countries rejected its ratification," indicating that the president's office now regards the treaty as dead.

Similarly, in Germany, while both houses of the German parliament have passed the legislation ratifying the treaty, German President Horst Koehler has yet to sign it pending a Constitutional challenge. Peter Gauweiler, an MP and member of the Christian Social Union, has launched the bid to have the treaty ruled unconstitutional citing objections that the treaty impinges on German sovereignty, in particular on the rights of German citizens to representation by members of the German parliament.

Myth-busting on trade

Reporting to Parliament yesterday on the outcome of last week's European Council meeting in Brussels, Gordon Brown repeated the hackneyed myth that "nearly 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and that 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union."

So today the Democracy Movement has fired off a letter to the Prime Minister to request the evidence for this statement. The letter reads:

Dear Prime Minister,

In your statement to Parliament yesterday on the outcome of last week’s meeting of the European Council, you said:

"nearly 60 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and that 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union."
(Hansard, 23 Jun 2008 : Column 30)

I am writing to ask if you would please provide me with the evidence for this assertion.

Specifically, confirmation that your 60 per cent figure for trade includes all trade and not just certain limited sections of exports, and that it also in the case of goods exports takes into account the distortion in figures created by the re-shipping ports at Rotterdam and Antwerp.

And specifically, the source of your figure that 3 million jobs are dependent "on our membership of the European Union" - as distinct from jobs related to trade. Clearly it would be nonsensical to claim that the continuation of trade and the safety of related jobs is dependent on our membership of the EU, given many non-EU countries trade successfully with EU members and indeed have beneficial trade agreements with the EU as a whole.

Has the Prime Minister misled Parliament? We'll keep you posted!

October or bust

Ireland being isolated? Quite the opposite. They're being crowded into a corner. Bullied by force of numbers into having to ask the people again, and this time get the 'right' answer.

With various EU leaders repeating the mantras that the treaty "is alive", that there is "no question of revising the treaty" and also that there's "no question of a two-speed Europe", what other option is being left open to Ireland exactly?

What's going on is transparent, and utterly shameful.

Pressure is on

That pressure is being applied, contrary to claims made not least by our own government, was neatly communicated by Irish PM Brian Cowen, speaking at the press conference that followed the European Council meeting.

"There are colleagues who believe there is not as much room for manouevre as many people would like to suggest that there is," he told journalists, courtesy of EUobserver.

Referring to his fellow EU leaders, he said "I made it clear that however frustrating for them, it is simply too early to know how we are going to move forward on this point."

Frustration? Misleading 'suggestions' about how much room to manouevre Ireland is actually being given? From the horse's mouth we're told the predictable anti-democratic reality behind the blizzard of benevolent rhetoric we've seen in the last couple of days.

October deadline

According to the official conclusions of the two day meeting, Mr Cowen has been required to report in more detail on the "way forward" at the next European Council meeting in October, with speculation growing of a second referendum as early as November or, more likely, in Spring 2009.

Unless of course, between now and October, the Irish government decides to stand by earlier sentiments about the impossibility of a second vote on the treaty and explain to their EU 'partners' that it simply wouldn't be winnable.

After all, re-running the referendum would be betting the house, with a credibility-busting second 'No' vote likely to have serious implications not just for the EU as we know it today but the Irish government itself.

Between a rock and a hard place, Mr Cowen could choose to side with the people - not just the majority who have already voted 'No' in Ireland, but also the millions across Europe who oppose yet more political integration but have been deliberately denied a say.

Ratification opt-outs

As a country, Ireland wouldn't be alone. The Czech Republic secured a special footnote in the text of the meeting conclusions, referring to how its own ratification depends on the verdict of its constitutional court.

Perhaps more interestingly, according to that EUobserver article, Poland also insisted on a slight change to the text to the effect that Warsaw cannot be included in the group of those who have ratified the treaty.

As we set out in our ratification 'state of play' posting, President Lech Kaczysnki is yet to sign the document, and was thought to be awaiting the outcome of the Irish referendum.

This latest development would indicate that he still isn't about to sign in a hurry.

Let's hope that, come October, Mr Cowen does Europe a favour, decides to face down this gang of anti-democratic bullies, and tells the EU elite their out-dated treaty is truly dead.