You are in:
- Archives » 2005
Euro Constitution
Is the European constitution a real constitution or not? And if not, what is it?
Ask this question as many times as possible because it’s the question that cannot be answered without exposing the fraudulent way in which the European Union is being imposed on the people of Europe.
The European constitution’s main proponents, such as Tony Blair, will not admit that it is a real constitution, nor will the tame media, nor the army of politicians and bureaucrats who are part of the bandwagon.
Even though it is called “The European Constitutional Treaty” we are told that it is in fact just another treaty, a “tidying up exercise” that combines all the old treaties such as Maastricht and the Single European Act.
It is difficult to imagine something more Orwellian.
If it is true and the constitution is not really a constitution, but just happens to be labelled as such, then what is the point in it? After all, all the previous treaties of Europe legally replaced their predecessors, so why not just call it a treaty and replace the last batch with this this new one?
If it is a real constitution, on the other hand, then it should be presented as such because voters should be made aware of its implications.
“A constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or organisation is governed” (says the Oxford English Dictionary). The American constitution or the French constitution to take two examples, are very clear in their aims and leave little room for ambiguity.
If it is a constitution in this sense, then one can assume that it is meant to supplant national ones, meaning in law, in legislation, in government because that’s what a constitution does; it gives those who ask for it a right to rule under its terms. It means the birth of a state called Europe as soon as next year and in case you didn’t notice, it is without the proper functional democratic institutions of its own in place to guarantee freedom and democracy as we know it.
Before going to the people directly in the form of a referendum, The European constitution should first be tested in the national courts. Tested for its legality and more importantly, for clarification. The courts should oblige the government to tell the public if it is or isn’t it a constitution for a European State.
If this is not tested in court then the constitution will lead those in power to consider that they have an elected mandate to run Europe as a supreme state, even if it is ratified as a treaty. There will be no more treaties and no more debate.
The Government is not above the law in a democracy. The state does not belong to the elected representatives, they are merely custodians for a limited period of time, and sovereignty is not theirs to give away.
Britain established its constitutional rights through treaty and acts going back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Even though its constitution is “unwritten” it still exists. The European constitution should be subjected to scrutiny by the institutions that guard the national constitution, such as the law lords, the privy council and the House of Lords in Britain and in France the “court constitutionnelle”. There are equivalent institutions all over Europe: Surely it is their primary function to step in at moments like these?
France’s constitution starts with the article that guarantees the independence of the nation. Even de Gaulle went to the constitutional courts before he went to the people via referendum.
Mrs Thatcher once said that “referenda are the tools of demagogues": Trying to ram this document through on the pretence that it is not a constitution when it clearly is, via a referendum, shows why.
Constitutions are not treaties and treaties are not constitutions and this one is neither, it is a mess, a mess that anyone in power could legally drive a coach and horses through and more or less impose what they like.
Ask the Iraqis, who must be studying the subject closely, but don’t try offering them a copy of the European constitution as a blueprint for their own, because the saner members of the Iraqi constitutional committee would rightly throw all 500 pages of it back in our faces as a work too reminiscent of the Saddam era.
Useful Idiots
A group of ageing socialist hacks gathers this week to celebrate the life and work of journalist Paul Foot, who died last year.
Oliver Kamm publishes an excellent corrective to the posthumous hero worship of a man who adored Lenin and cheered on Palestinian terrorists. Check it out.
From useful idiots to useless idiots. The political antics of acting dynasty the Redgraves have kept Brits amused for decades. Only now, however, some hacks are beginning to believe the hype.
Stephen Pollard choked on his coffee when he heard BBC presenter Sir David Frost introduce the family matriarch Vanessa Redgrave as "the social conscience of us all."
Thankfully, Pollard has a better description of Ms Redgrave:
"Terrorists' friend, admirer and supplicant of Saddam Hussein, enemy of democracy and all round malign influence."
If only the BBC would let Pollard grill the likes of Redgrave: Now that would educate, entertain and inform.
Putting Passengers First?
The EU's latest piece of legislation could soon have a body count.
Earlier this week an EU directive came into force obliging airlines to compensate passengers whose flights are delayed. Several commentators questioned whether pressure to avoid financial penalties might make airlines compromise safety. Now, evidence of just that kind of activity is emerging.
Three days after the directive came into force, a British Airways 747 bound for London from Los Angeles lost power in one engine shortly after take-off. Even though the plane was only 100 ft from the ground when the engine failed, the pilot was instructed to continue his voyage on the remaining three engines.
A 747 can fly perfectly well on three engines, but as the EU Referendum Blog reports, this puts unnecessary strain on fuel reserves and flying efficiency. In this case, the jumbo had to land at Manchester airport when it became clear that it lacked fuel to reach London's Heathrow airport.
The EU Referendum Blog predicts airlines will close ranks to stonewall passenger concerns about safety risks: It's likely, too, that the EU's transport commission will wave off any criticism of its pet "consumer protection" legislation.
But it appears that in its desire to introduce yet more Europe-wide legislation against businesses, the EU may have put ideology before passenger safety.
"A Collision With Reality"
That's how Melanie Phillips sees the recent crisis in Northern Ireland's peace process. Her comments on how the current debacle is a result of the British and Irish governments' appeasement of terrorists are - as ever - the sharpest on the web.
More on the IRA's criminal activities - and a tough leader column on the Ulster crisis can be found in the Times.
Melanie wrote a day before a British newspaper published reports that elements within the IRA terror network may be planning a bomb attack on mainland Britain.
The IRA last attacked mainland Britain in 1996, when it ended its 1994 "cease fire" with a huge bomb blast in London's Canary Wharf office complex.
Two people died in the attack, which the IRA and its apologists blamed on British obstruction of the peace process. Interestingly, prominent figures on the IRA's political wing have warned that the furore surrounding December's bank raid is also "unhelpful to the peace process" - though as this whinge is the IRA's default response to any questioning of its actions or motives, it should perhaps not be taken as a serious threat.
That said, the reports come less than a month after the IRA announced that it had withdrawn its offer to put its terror arsenal "beyond use."
The reports have been played down by British officials. However, as long as the IRA retains the means of returning to terror - and as long as the terror gang's political representatives can boast about the threat they pose - democracy and liberalism in Ireland and Britain will be compromised.
It's a shame that it took a multi-million pound bank heist to wake the British and Irish governments up to this.
It's Grim Up North
EURSOC's older readers will remember how in the 1980s British newspapers would fill their pages with shocking reports on gun crime and racial unrest in the United States. Things seem to have swung the other way recently.
The Weekly Standard has become particularly good at chilling the blood of its US readers with lurid reports of discontent among Europe's growing immigrant (read: Muslim) communities.
This week it's Sweden's turn to be subject of a bleak report on how the prized welfare state is blamed for creating ghettos of underemployed immigrants. Interesting stuff - like the author's previous features on France's simmering ghettoes, we recommend you check it out.
State Of The Union
Europe's much-vaunted "Lisbon Agenda" - which was supposed to make the EU the world's most competitive and dynamic economy by 2010 - has been put on hold.
The European Commission has instead decided to concentrate on the more modest but crucial target of delivering more jobs and growth.
Governments pay lip service to the need for growth and the necessity of reform: But just how much has each nation done to modernise Europe's economy?
Free market think-tank The Stockholm Network has just published a country-by-country guide to the EU's 25 nations. There are horror stories, such as in France, where activist judges force companies to rehire staff laid off months or even years ago. But in general, and in particular in central Europe, reforms pioneered by Britain in the 1980s are having a positive effect on growths and employment.
The report is downloadable for free in three parts. Visit the Stockholm Network's home page for details.
Lies, Laws And Lobster
It's been a Strange Old Week. It got off to a bizarre start when self-proclaimed "free market socialist" José Socrates led his centre-left party to a landslide win in Portugal.
The outgoing Social Democratic government, led by Pedro Santana Lopes, wasn't helped by a last minute endorsement by former PM, Jose Manuel Barroso.
Barroso is now president of the European commission. Looks like he jumped ship at the right moment.
Socrates' win might prove more than just embarrassing for Barroso. The new PM has vowed to emulate the "Nordic Social Democracy" model in Portugal. Now, while we have no wish to doubt Mr Socrates' Europhile credentials, it is interesting that of the four countries we could describe as Nordic - Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland - two are semi-detached from mainstream EU policy and one has prospered by keeping out of the EU altogether.
Could there be a lesson there for Portugal?
The pain in Spain
In another, slightly better publicised poll, Spain voted overwhelmingly to approve the EU constitution. Around 77 percent of voters supported the treaty - though turnout was poor, with only 41.5 percent of those eligible showing up to vote.
Few Eurosceptics expected any surprises from Spain - it has been described as the "most enthusiastically European country" in the union - and the EU is associated in voters' minds with the transition from totalitarian rule and economic prosperity.
As such, it does not yet feel as if the referendum "season" has started properly - although both sides will draw positive conclusions from Spain's experience.
Chirac rocks the vote
The low turnout did rattle some Europhiles, though, not least France's president Jacques Chirac. Chirac has promised a referendum on the constitution, probably before France's two-month summer shutdown.
Rumours are flying in Paris that the president wants to bring the vote forward by a couple of months. While France's two main parties will support the constitution, the political scene buzzes with numerous fringe parties, many of whom - on right and left - oppose the treaty.
Unions are looking for a way to kick Chirac's government for its economic reforms. Others hope that a No will halt Turkey's progress towards EU membership - an issue that worries many in France. Recent scandals - a finance minister discovered to be living in a 14,000 euro a month Paris flat at the taxpayer's expense, even though he owned a large apartment in town - have embarrassed the government.
Indeed, it is reported that support for the constitution, which was running at 70 percent in September, dropped to 60 percent last month. 40 percent of citizens plan to vote against it.
Chirac is desperate to avoid a close call like the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum. While many voters claimed to support the treaty at the outset of the campaign, the No campaign grew in strength until the referendum was passed on a razor-thin margin of 51 percent.
He has called a parliamentary session to bring the vote forwards in the hope of stemming the No vote before it gains momentum.
Government officials admit that this could pose logistical problems - voters need to be furnished with copies of the constitution - but this could suit Chirac. Only one in ten Spanish voters claimed to understand what the EU constitution represented. One Yes campaigner told voters that "One didn't need to read or even understand the constitution to know that it was a good thing."
As familiarity with the constitution seems to breed contempt for it, Chirac stands to gain from a rushed, ill-informed and poorly-debated vote.
The end of the affair?
Strangest of all, President Bush is in town. Whatever happened to "punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia?" In the past two days, Bush has tucked into an intimate lobster supper with Chirac, is currently bound for a smooch-in with Germany's Gerhard Schröder - and has lambasted Russia's Vladimir Putin for failing to keep up a committment to "democracy and rule of law."
Bush and his European counterparts have worked hard to make the President's visit a successful demonstration of cross-Atlantic ties. Every speech, every handshake has been choreographed to highlight friendly relations between leaders, to the extent that when Bush and Chirac were photographed together in Brussels, Bush followed his body language coach's advice on how to give the impression of being relaxed so closely that he appeared tense. That said, with Chirac curled up in the next armchair like a viper the US president was probably right to be on his guard.
You'll be familiar with the differences - on arms to China, on Iraq (still), on Kyoto - perhaps less so with the point of agreement (Bush and European leaders agree that Syria should pull its murdering thugs out of Lebanon).
However, some correspondents, particularly on the right, have treated the President's visit as a wake for, rather than a celebration of Atlantic ties.
Mark Steyn led the charge in yesterday's Telegraph, claiming that Washington has changed the style of Bush's remarks to Europe "because there can be no substance."
Europe - under its current leadership - and the US - under its current leadership - have little in common, whether in terms of vision, means or even perception of the threats facing liberal democracies. Steyn reckons that's because the threats aren't even the same:
"But the difference is America's (threats) are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the noisier Continental mosques."
Imagine German, Belgian or French soldiers fighting in large numbers fighting in Iran, in Syria, or wherever US troops may be called to continue the war on terror, Steyn continues. Hard to picture. But does this represent what he calls "the death of 'the West?'"
Who's to blame? As we indicated above, the US president and his counterparts in Belgium, Germany and France are clearly incompatible. These leaders change - anti-Bush commentators will have to seek alternative employment in four years. Chirac is considering running for a third term in 2007, but he is by no means guaranteed victory. Schröder will be well gone by then.
European anti-Americanism is bigger than Schröder and Chirac, but has lacked focus for decades. George W Bush has provided anti-Americans with a focus, while Chirac and Schröder have dedicated their rule to exploiting and manipulating the prejudice. Will the current bout of anti-American hysteria outlast these leaders?
Janet Daley fears it might. Like Mark Steyn, she observes Europe and the US moving apart. Unlike Steyn, however, she doesn't see differing opinions on the use of military power as the main bone of contention.
Instead, Europe and American are divided by attitudes towards democracy. Daley says that Europeans no longer believe "in real democracy of the kind that Americans recognise - government of the people, by the people and for the people:"
"Trust the people? They are just as likely to follow a fascist demagogue as to perpetuate the sacred principle of justice.
"Better to make your cynical peace with the worst aspects of human nature than to pretend that free men will always choose good over evil. Much better to make a mutually profitable trade-off behind the scenes than to expose political decisions to the popular will. What evidence is there that the people actually know what is best for them? Most charitably, the European philosophy of government - shortly to be permanently installed under the EU constitution - is paternalistic. At worst, it is arrogant and authoritarian."
Europe, she continues, "has traded liberty for security: the safety of consensus, the reassuring unfreedom of bureaucratic control and an over-regulated economy."
After several revolutions and the last centuries world wars, "The people - with nothing but the raw franchise - will never be allowed to run amok again. Europeans cannot be trusted to govern themselves. Their affairs will be administered by an EU oligarchy. And if they do not trust their own populations, European leaders are scarcely going to support handing out freedom to anarchic tribal societies that scarcely know what the right to vote is for."
European elites are particularly adverse to the kind of "bottom up" (as opposed to "top down") democracy believed to be favoured by Americans - hence the widespread horror among Eurocrats when nations threaten referenda.
The EU constitution, which will be interpreted by European judges dedicated to wringing every last drop of centralised power from the text before a new, even more integrationist treaty is drawn up, is a case in point. Europeans are being encouraged to vote for the document - all the better if they do not understand what it contains. In Britain, the government has yet to come up with a good argument to support the constitution - and instead relies on threats of how the UK's relations with Europe will suffer if it is not approved.
As integration proceeds, governments will be reduced to little more than pressure groups lobbying Brussels for breaks. Voters will have as much chance of influencing a Euro-judge's ruling as Mark Steyn has of becoming director-general of the BBC.
But hey, at least we'll be safe.
Eurobabble
Since the EU expanded from 15 to 25 nations last May, the number of official languages has leapt to 20. Here at EURSOC we celebrate diversity, but the EU is discovering that diversity, and in particular linguistic diversity, has a price. Last year's bill for translations was £464 million. In 2007, when EU documents must be translated into languages like Maltese and Latvian, the bill is set to rise to £741 million.
The Telegraph reports that Europe's shortage of translators able to handle cross-translations from some of the more obscure languages has led to private firms coining it in, sometimes charging around 10 pence a word for documents.
Maltese translators are doing particularly well, perhaps because of their small numbers: Only the most important EU documents are being translated into Maltese at present, while Brussels looks for 120 translators to translate the entire body of EU law - 80,000 pages of it - before 2007.
Cutting out the middle man
Remember how we reported yesterday that Britain's government was waving away cash from Brussels, worried that if the EU was seen to be funding pro-constitution propaganda it would be counterproductive for the Yes campaign? Well, we would hate you to think that no EU money was reaching Brussels' propagandists at all.
Instead of relying on the somewhat embarrassed government to hand out the readies to grateful Eurofanatics, the EU has bypassed the government and passed the cash on to universities, think tanks and sundry pro-federalist groups.
According to The Times, about a million Euros a year is spent on organisations that promote the EU - including a number of think tanks staffed by swivel-eyed federalists.
Zappo Sets Out Euro-Vision
As Europe prepares to vote on the constitution, citizens are getting used to their governments explaining what the EU constitutional treaty will mean for the union in future.
All except Britain's, that is, where the government spends most of its time explaining that the constitution is actually nothing at all like what our European partners imagine it to be.
Today, officials have been desperately plastering over unfortunate, but telling comments from Spain's prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
Spain votes on Sunday, and citizens are expected to approve the constitution, despite worries about voter apathy. Spain has done rather well out of the EU - voters identify the union with assisting the nation's switch to democracy, and furthermore it has benefitted from billions in EU subsidies. These subsidies are likely to dry up shortly as cash is redirected to help needier states in central Europe, so it is perhaps fortunate for pro-constitution officials that the vote is being held at a time when Spain feels positively disposed towards Brussels.
Few in Spain have read the constitutional treaty, so in a radio interview Zappo helpfully explained to them what it would mean:
“We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.” (...)
“We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.”
Hmmm... well it does fit in with the constitutional demand that "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy.” Nevertheless, British foreign office spokesmen have spent today parrying away Zappo's claims. One said that Britain's embassies, place in NATO and foreign policy will stay - and this cannot change "without our agreement." Which is hardly reassuring.
Unlikely Alliance
Oddly, the idea that Europe should open its own embassies and develop a federal foreign policy may be gathering friends in high places. Yesterday we reported on how high-ranking US officials, including Condi Rice and potentially George Bush, were coming round to the idea of the EU constitution. Today, Gerard Baker in the Times examines the idea further.
Traditionally, the US has paid lip service to the ideal of closer EU integration, especially on foreign policy, where the old state department dilemma of "If I want to get Europe on the phone, who the hell should I call" still holds sway. However, increasingly blatant anti-Americanism from the French, German and Belgian governments have persuaded the current administration that a British-style Europe of closely aligned nation states is a better partner than a federal entity dominated by Paris and Berlin.
Part of Washington's overtures to Europe this month has been an attempt to soften US opposition to the latter vision.
What can they be thinking of? Only last month, Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schröder described NATO - the world's most successful military alliance - as "outdated." France and Germany have made no secret of their desire to provide China with the arms it needs to threaten the US in the Pacific. Both Schröder and his French counterpart Jacques Chirac have openly considered building ties with Russia, and have spoken of the need to create a "multipolar world" to limit US power.
Worst still, according to Baker, is the fact that Britain appears to be pushing the pro-constitution line to Washington officials. London, it seems, has persuaded Bush's people that were Europe to have a single foreign policy, Britain could deliver the EU as an ally every time the US required Europe's support.
Blair's people are deluded. Here's Baker:
"Yet once again it seems that a combination of British naivety and misplaced confidence about its ability to control things European has infected the Government’s judgment. The real leaders of the EU — in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, are quite clear about where they want this newly united Europe to go, and it is not in London’s direction, still less Washington’s."
Baker adds that NATO could be the first casualty of a common European foreign policy. If Europe, rather than national governments, acts as the interlocutor of transatlantic affairs, the "genuinely multilateral" NATO will have had its day.
Radio Free Europe?
That guy in Washington might be able to get "Europe" on the line after all. Sadly, he might not like what Mr Europe has to say.
One would expect a European foreign policy to be decided by a vote by nation states. Pro-American nations might just win this, but Washington must have unnatural faith in its ability to persuade Europe's governments of its point of view if it believes it can continue to do this forever.
A powerful foreign policy commissioner would be more Europe's style. While such a figure would be expected to be answerable to governments, the EU's nature is such that whoever occupies the role would claim that in order to create a serious foreign policy, the commissioner would have to overrule national governments. Much in the same way that the European Central Bank declares its independence as governments plead for a change in interest rates, the EU foreign office would be deaf to protests from national capitals.
And who would head up the foreign office? Well, as British prime ministers are always keen to remind us, compromises must be made in the interests of European unity. In other words, Paris would demand a Frenchman get the job (possibly as compensation for surrendering its permanent UN security council seat) and the rest of us would meekly go along with it.
Fortunately, the US is far from convinced that a common foreign policy for Europe is worth having. Donald Rumsfeld is cooler on the idea than Ms Rice and more importantly, it is unlikely that central European nations, who are more attached to NATO than Mr Schröder, are not keen federalists when it comes to foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the danger is there - and Britain's government is looking like an increasingly reckless guardian of the nation's independence.
Europe This Week
We don't want your bloody money!
A rare sighting of someone refusing EU largesse today. The European Commission has announced plans to spend 8 million euros (read: taxpayers money) on a propaganda blitz informing voters of the joys of the EU constitution.
According to The Times, the money will be spent on those countries "with a high level of ignorance of the constitution." By which we imagine they mean those countries where a public vote may be held and where public opinion is swaying against the wretched document.
Apparently 650,000 euros was earmarked for Britain. However, the British government has quickly warned the EU off making such a "donation", claiming that reports of Brussels paying for the yes campaign would be counterproductive.
Send in the cavalry
Instead of relying on EU handouts, Britain's prime minister appears to be banking on the public appeal of President George W Bush. It is reported that the President will make a pro-constitution speech when he visits Europe this month. Bush's endorsement is aimed at helping pro-US, pro-constitution governments in Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland overcome voters' scepticism about the treaty.
But does the President's endorsement carry any weight with voters? Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is enjoying a honeymoon period with all but the most unpleasant of the European papers. Her mild support of the EU constitution - "it is a good development" - might have carried some weight if it was more widely reported.
But Dubya's? EURSOC's admiration for the US president is boundless, but it is hard to imagine his support for the treaty will suddenly make it appeal to British voters.
What Dubya's endorsement does demonstrate, however, is the final death of good relations between US Republicans and Britain's hapless Tory party.
Last year, we reported on how British Conservatives were not invited to the US Republican convention - and how party leader Michael Howard's unpleasant opportunism over the Iraq war led a Republican spokesman describing the Tories as a "bunch of wankers."
Howard's Conservatives are firmly against the European Constitution. Bush and Rice's thumbs-up for the treaty signals the demise of a decades-old alliance, which reached a peak in the Thatcher - Reagan "golden age."
EU warns Brown
No sniggering at the back. The European Commission has warned Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown that Britain risks breaking the EU's three percent limit on budget deficits for the second year on the trot.
The commission asked the government to exercise more control over spending and revenues.
While Britain is not a member of the Eurozone, the government works within the single currency's 'convergence criteria' and - to some extent - within the Euro stability pact. Why on earth the British government should be expected to respect the limits of the stability pact when it was comprehensively trashed by France and Germany in 2002, 2003 and 2004 was not explained in the commissioner's diktat.
Furthermore, the Eurozone registered a shockingly feeble rate of growth in the last quarter of last year: Just 0.2 percent. Indeed, the commission itself is meeting to figure out ways to inject some flexibility in the stability pact, which would allow nations to spend or cut taxes in response to changes in the economic cycle.
Smaller nations who have made sacrifices to keep within the bounds of the pact are opposed to the commission changing the rules after France and Germany (who demanded the pact in the first place) made a nonsense of them. France even opined that it was "too important" to abide by the rules of the pact, which was made for lesser nations (like Britain, no doubt).
However, it is likely the commission will go ahead with this face-saving measure - which has the added benefit of granting sensible freedoms to economically-troubled governments.
Barroso's at it too
EURSOC readers will be familiar with former Commission president Romano Prodi's regular forays into Italian politics. The commissioner spent has final years in charge of the EU using Brussels' impressive propaganda machinery to position himself as the "King across the water" of Italian politics. Left-wing Italians fed up with PM Silvio Berlusconi's antics (not to mention his support of George Bush's War on Terror) looked forward to Prodi's future leadership of an "Olive Branch" coalition dedicated to unseating the colourful premier.
Of course, voices in the EU were heard protesting against Prodi's regular speechmaking and pamphleteering. It was probably fair to describe Prodi's campaigning as an abuse of his office, but most as Europeans believe that the commission is bent, self-serving and power-crazed anyway, the president's behaviour was shrugged off.
Those cynical Europeans turned out to be right after all. Now Prodi's successor, Jose Manuel Barroso, finds himself in a storm over his endorsement of the leader of his own centre-right Social Democratic Party back in Portugal.
The PSD, led by Barroso's former sidekick Pedro Santana Lopes, looks like it is heading for a kicking in Sunday's elections. Barroso, whose presidency of the EU commission got off to a rocky start when he backed a conservative catholic for justice commissioner, tried to stay out of the fray. However, he couldn't resist helping out his old chums and so appeared in a thirty-second television commercial backing the PSD.
His office claims he did nothing wrong: "These are politicians and neither the treaty nor the code of conduct stops them from acting in that capacity. He spoke in a personal capacity and nothing he said could be construed as representative of his position as the president of the commission." However, his enemies in Brussels disagree.
German socialist bloc leader Martin Schultz (yes, him again) whinged that Barroso's endorsement risked compromising his position as commission president. Of course, Schultz was not so quick to condemn his fellow lefty, Romano Prodi, when Prodi was using his office to undermine Silvio Berlusconi. Especially as Schultz has been unable to get over his pantomime-dame horror on being described as a likely concentration camp capo by Berlusconi when the German was leading a disruption of the Italian prime minister's presidential speech to the EU parliament.
Schultz went on to lead opposition to Barroso - and Silvio Berlusconi's - nomination for justice commissioner, Rocco "Friend of the Pope" Buttiglione.
Using the EU as a tool to settle personal grudges? Never.
Anyway, most Eurocrats are willing to tolerate Barroso's endorsement as the price the EU must pay to get the best people. One diplomat told the Independent: "The price for attracting good people to do jobs in Brussels is that you accept that they have political ambitions. Barroso led a centre-right government in Lisbon and was made president of the commission with the support of Europe's centre-right. What kind of fairy tale are his critics in the European Parliament living in?"
And finally...
Not that EURSOC condones violence, blah blah blah, but it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the results of yesterday's Greenpeace "intervention" at London's International Petroleum Exchange.
Thirty five Greenpeace "volunteers" stormed the IPE after lunch on Wednesday to mark the Kyoto Treaty coming into action. They planned to disrupt oil trading by making as much noise as possible... but had not reckoned on the post-lunch temperament of the IPE's floor traders.
The traders - most of whom are under 25 - did not take kindly to the invasion, and administered a sound thrashing to the protestors. The Times reports that the retreating protestors were pursued by cries of "Sod off, Swampy."
The Times' report includes a revealing piece of class hatred from one bourgeois Greenpeace protestor: "They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs."
Contrasting Constitutions
A thought from the Economist as Europe's governments prepare to sell the constitution to their people:
"LATE last year European Union ministers sat down in Brussels to draft a common declaration about the new European constitution. Since all 25 EU countries are meant to ratify this document over the next two years—and as many as ten will hold a referendum on it—it seemed a useful idea to set out succinctly what the constitution does and doesn't do. Useful: but, sadly, also impossible. The British suggested that it should be made clear that the constitution's Charter of Fundamental Rights would not limit the rights of managers to sack workers. But the Belgians and the French objected; as far as they are concerned the charter will do exactly that. All right, said the British and others: how about making clear that the constitution puts paid to the idea of a common EU tax? Not at all, said the Belgians and other federalists, for whom the creation of such a tax remains a cherished ideal. Eventually, the ministers abandoned the whole idea of a common declaration. Each country will be left to explain the constitution to its own citizens as it sees fit."
Amusing, of course, but what does this conflict of interpretations say about the constitution - and how far it will lead along the path to a federal Europe?
Britain's government can't even make up its mind. Foreign secretary Jack Straw told the BBC that the constitution handed power back to the EU's nations, while drawing a line in the sand for Eurofanatic federalists. According to Straw, the constitution declared that Europe's political integration would go "this far and no further."
Straw's colleague, Minister for Europe Denis MacShane, was obviously off-message. A few weeks before Straw declared EU integration to be over, MacShame was telling a student group that "Europe is very young - this (the constitution) won't be the last word."
In all fairness, MacShame's take on the constitution is closer to that of leaders on continental Europe - and, indeed, the ministers' boss Tony Blair. For, as the Sun recalls, the PM himself told an audience in Cardiff back in 2002 that Britons must get over the idea that Europe can go "this far and no further."
Mixed messages from the government on the European constitution appear to be part of the package. It certainly fits in with the British establishment's traditional strategy on European integration, which is to deny everything until new legislation is in place and then to claim that to reject it would be to cave in to the worst instincts of Eurosceptics.
Rod Liddle, writing in yesterday's Sunday Times, looks back on five years of Labour's declarations on the treaty. Here's Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons, in 2003:
“This is not a major change . . . there is no need for a referendum.” (On PM, the BBC Radio 4 programme.) “I am not saying it has got no substantial constitutional significance, of course it will have.” (In the House of Commons.) “Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new, united Europe.” (In the Financial Times.) There, I hope that’s cleared things up. On other occasions, Mr Hain has described the constitution as nothing more than a “tidying-up exercise."
Liddle - who used to produce the BBC's Today programme, remembers how he and an up-and-coming journalist faced the wrath of the government when they drew attention to a document planning an EU constitution back in 2000. Ministers and press secretaries poured denials and abuse on the reporters and the BBC, claiming that they had been "duped" by Eurosceptics and declaring that Britain would never sign up for any constitution.
Five years on, they still can't get their story - or stories - straight.
And that journalist, whose investigations drew such venom from the government and its media attack dogs? A certain Andrew Gilligan.
NoKo's Nukes
Few were surprised when the world's worst state North Korea announced its nuclear capacity. Its subsequent cancellation of talks aimed at finding a peaceful settlement to the arms race crisis it provoked was inevitable, but disturbed many commentators.
So what happens next? NoKo was stung by US criticism that is is an "outpost of tyranny" - yet on the same day of the statement it was reported to have executed 70 defectors. The statement also whinged that US criticism insulted the "ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by (North Korea's) people" - yet there is absolutely no serious reporting from the outside world in North Korea so who is going to hear the US claims and be offended by them?
North Korea would be comic if it lacked such deadly potential - and if millions of its own citizens had not already died in Stalin-inspired mass starvations.
But what can the world do about this absurd state? North Korea has nothing but nukes. It hopes to win influence and support for its regime by brandishing weapons of mass destruction - and threatening to pass them to the highest bidder. For years, the region's big military powers - Russia and China - have viewed North Korea as America's problem. Pyongyang threatens the US and South Korea - and, to a lesser extent, Japan. Moscow and Beijing have been happy to see the rogue state as a difficulty for the US, tying up US interests in the region and limiting the scope for US action elsewhere. Furthermore, China's ageing communists must have been amused by South Korea's embarrassing "peace bribes" to Pyongyang - proof, perhaps, of the capitalist world's willingness to betray its honour for a quiet life.
However, since 2002 (when it was revealed that Pyongyang had reneged on its promise to stop pursuing nuclear arms) China in particular has paid greater attention to its troublesome neighbour. Rumours that all is not well within the North Korean regime have raised hopes in the west, but China fears that instability may make the rogue state more belligerent.
The last thing China wants is a nuclear conflict on its borders (Taiwan notwithstanding!). Add to that the millions of refugees who would flee the north into China - and the collapse of the Asian economy that would accompany attacks on Seoul and possibly Japan.
The Times rightly sees North Korea's aggression as an opportunity for China. The would-be superpower keeps Pyongyang alive with oil and grain donations: As the Times says, "China could bring North Korea to a standstill tomorrow if it cut off oil supplies, and knows well how close its economy is to the edge." The newspaper demands that Beijing overcome its fear of unbalancing the wicked regime in Pyongyang and pull the plug on its life support.
Europe should watch Beijing closely, too. It is all but certain that within six months the European Union will give in to French demands to lift the ban on selling arms to China. Supporters of arms sales claim China has moved on from the dissident-murdering dictatorship it was when the ban was put in place. Opponents - and EURSOC is among them - argue that helping China develop a high-tech arsenal will provoke an arms race in the east Asia region, with Taiwan and Japan tooling up in response to China. Naturally, North Korea would step up its nuclear activities as its "enemy" Japan - which it sees as second only to the United States in evil - increases expenditure on weaponry.
Is this what France sees as a multipolar world - or is it merely a world in which danger zones are multiplying every day?
Sadly, it seems that EURSOC's side has lost the argument, and Europe will soon begin to arm China. But nonetheless, China's behaviour towards North Korea will prove instructive. Will it confront the rogue state and use its influence to ease the country back into the community of nations - or will it continue to prop up a dangerous and murderous regime, safe in the knowledge that Europe will forgive it whatever it does?
Zappo Wheels Out Big Guns
Spain's prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero parades his Old Europe credentials this week by inviting France's president Chirac and Germany's chancellor Schröder to Barcelona to launch the campaign for a yes vote in Spain's constitutional referendum.
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's PM, was said to have pulled out of the meeting at the last minute due to flu.
The Times reckons Spain's vote is a foregone conclusion. Only 7 percent of Spaniards plan to vote against the constitutional treaty, with 40 voting yes and 38 percent undecided. However, over 90 percent of voters know little about the EU constitutional treaty, despite a month-long government funded propaganda campaign explaining the benefits of EU membership. Condensed versions of the treaty have been handed out at newsstands and football matches.
According to the Times, Zappo's government has spent 7.5 million euros on the campaign - small beer, perhaps, compared to the estimated 80 billion Spain has received in EU subsidies over the past decades.
Still, one premier will look wistfully at Spain's propaganda budget. Britain's prime minister Tony Blair is strangely absent from Zapatero's guest list. There is no love lost between Blair and Zappo, despite the fact that both come from the centre-left tradition and have made a great show of not tampering too much with the economic inheritance of previous right-wing governments. That's where any similarity ends, however. Blair's support for the invasion of Iraq and his continued dedication to building democracy in the nation contrasts unhappily with Zapatero's shameful order for a Spanish retreat. Indeed, while Blair's links to president Bush make him unpopular with Spain's current regime, his close ties for Spain's previous PM, the honourable and decent José Maria Aznar, make him a definite persona non grata at Zappo-hosted Euro love ins.
Blair will find it difficult to get away with spending anything like the seven and a half million Zappo earmarked for yes campaign propaganda. He may be able to funnel EU money direct from Brussels into promotional material - but this is unclear.
Michael White in the Guardian complains that Britain's no campaign is well-funded, backed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere's newspapers. Poor old Blair will have to rely on the Guardian, Independent and the Mirror.
Any gloating readers might enjoy at the prospect of the the Guardian and Indie - both determined enemies of Blair for the same reasons as Zappo - having to cheer on the PM in the referendum is soon dispelled by White's claim that Britain's broadcasters will be "neutral - that is, helpful."
As ever in Britain, the BBC is the one to watch here. Recently revealed to be soundly pro-EU by one of its own internal reports, the Beeb has also been accused, not altogether convincingly, of Euroscepticism by Britain's trade commissioner Peter Mandelson. The Beeb will watch its step as the build up to Britain's referendum continues: Viewers are wise to its usual trick of balancing a reasonable-sounding supporter of the Beeb's position with a swivel-eyed nutcase guaranteed to frighten voters away from contrarian positions.
The BBC is in a difficult position, though it is difficult to sympathise with the broadcaster. Post Kelly Affair, its broadcasts are being scrutinised more than any time since Mrs Thatcher's suspicion - not entirely unfounded - that the entire organisation was out to get her. Cable, digital and other subscription channels are circling, watching for any evidence that the tax-funded broadcaster is not fulfilling its brief.
Despite this, the government will be leaning heavily on the broadcaster to place its spokesmen in prominent slots to praise the constitutional treaty. As any PR expenditure on yes vote propaganda is likely to irritate Eurosceptic Brits even more, Blair's only chance to get his message across is to get his supporters into television studios and newspaper columns.
IRA Throws Toys From Pram (But Not Guns)
The IRA announced last night it has withdrawn its offer to put its weapons "beyond use."
In its propaganda sheet An Phoblacht, the terror group said that the British and Irish governments had "tried its patience to the limit" in recent weeks - a reference perhaps to UK and Irish government claims that the IRA was behind December's £26.5 million bank robbery.
The IRA statement continued, "Our initiatives have been attacked, devalued and dismissed by pro-unionist and anti-republican elements, including the British government. The Irish government have lent themselves to this...
"...the two governments are intent on changing the basis of the peace process. They claim that 'the obstacle now to a lasting and durable settlement is the continuing paramilitary and criminal activity of the IRA'. We reject this."
Most pundits outside the IRA's senior leadership see the statement as a tantrum by the terror group rather than a serious threat to the Northern Irish peace process. While Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams claimed that "enormous good work has been undone", Downing Street reiterated its position that the IRA remained the main stumbling block to agreement.
Prior to December's bank raid, it was rumoured that the IRA was close to an arms decommissioning deal: Yesterday's statement demonstrates that the terror group has some distance to go before it is willing to join the democratic process.
In all, it's been an embarrassing (if lucrative) couple of months for Irish republicans and their supporters. First the Belfast bank raid, believed by all but the terror group's apologists in Sinn Fein to be the work of the IRA. Then, in January, Interpol issued warrants for the arrest of three IRA men suspected of training FARC narcoterrorists in Colombia. The men were sentenced to 17-year prison terms but are feared to have fled the country. Despite a well-funded and vocal "Bring them home" campaign run by IRA supporters in Northern Ireland, the fugitives can now be arrested in 189 countries.
The heist and IRA links with the bloodthirsty FARC group damaged the Republican cause among its traditional supporters in Britain and the USA. However, several independent "interventions" haven't helped the "struggle" much either.
In January, a Scottish academic wrote in horror to the BBC to complain about a children's television presenter's declared affection for the red hand symbol. (EDIT: Note how the Guardian slavishly follows the republican line by unquestioningly describing the red hand as 'sectarian.')
Similarly easily-outraged unionists despaired that the traditional symbol of Ulster had become stigmatised by the forces of political correctness in the BBC. Cooler heads - on both sides of the Northern Irish community - pointed out that the red hand was certainly used as a symbol by protestant terror gangs but also by certainly-not-protestant Irish football teams. Besides, the Irish tricolour flag is painted on murals and flown by IRA supporters - should it be banned as a symbol of terror?
Much hilarity ensued, much of it at the expense of the hapless Scots academic. More serious was a gaffe by Irish president Mary McAleese, who appeared to compare Ulster protestants to Nazis.
Demonstrating the traditional Irish trait of installing Ireland's problems above and beyond those of everyone else in the world, ever, McAleese made the remarks before attending a ceremony commemorating the Holocaust, of all places.
Speaking of how the Nazis exploited generations of hatred for Jews, McAleese said that "They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things."
McAleese later apologised, but not before a barrage of criticism struck, and not only from outraged Unionists - Oliver Kamm was reminded of Conor Cruise O'Brien's remarks on previous comparisons of Irish suffering with attacks on Jews, this time by Ken Livingstone:
"(Livingstone's historical claim) leaves out the fact that the oppression of the Jews in history vastly exceeds that of the Irish, in duration, consistency and intensity, even if no account is taken of the Holocaust at all."
A strange upshot of these developments has been a rehabilitation in some quarters of the IRA's arch-enemy the Rev. Ian Paisley. Rev Paisley, believed in most quarters to be a bogeyman of bigotry, a throwback to early-seventies Ulster, is now the leader of Northern Ireland's largest unionist party, the DUP. Not least thanks to his moderate predecessor in the Official Unionist Party David Trimble's inability to persuade unionist voters that the IRA would fulfil its part of the peace process deal.
The IRA has relied on reports of Paisley's sectarian antics to win sympathy for its cause in Britain and Europe. Indeed, back in the 1980s a story circulated in Belfast that a senior Provo was asked why the terror group did not assassinate Paisley. "Why would we do that", the Provo is said to have replied, "He's the best publicity manager we have."
Much like a broken clock is right twice a day, some observers reckon that Paisley's lifelong refusal to make deals with the terrorists now looks like principled resistance, not least in the face of the IRA's continued campaign and what appears to be an orchestrated endeavour to demean Ulster unionism. Cue, late last year, a couple of almost-sympathetic portraits of Paisley in British newspapers.
Elections are due in Northern Ireland this spring. It is almost certain that the events of the past few months will strengthen support for Paisley's DUP. It remains to be seen how they will affect Sinn Fein's prospects.
UPDATE: Thanks to the reader who mailed to remind us of another IRA - Sinn Fein gaffe. In January, Sinn Fein spokesman Mitchell McLaughlin declared that he did not believe that the IRA's murder of catholic housewife Jean McConville was a crime.
30-year old mother of ten McConville was abducted from her home and murdered by IRA 'volunteers' in 1972, reportedly for coming to the aid of a dying British soldier.
McConville's murder was the best-known of a series of multiple murders carried out by the IRA in the early seventies. These catholic civilians - whose bodies were never returned to their families - became known as "the Disappeared."
McConville's remains were only found two years ago.
Mitchell McLaughlin now concedes that her murder was "wrong" though not a crime. Again, both communities in Northern Ireland - as well as many of the South's media and public figures - have rounded on the terror apologist.
It seems patience with Ireland's terrorists is shortening - and fast. Not before time.
Germany's Five Million Unemployed
Another blow for the European social model: Unemployment in Germany crashed through the five million mark last month.
Germany's jobless rate is now 12.1 percent, by far the highest of any large economy in Europe. In fact, the real figure may be even higher, as Germany's main Christian Democrat opposition party claims that the 1.5 to 2 million on "back to work" schemes should be counted as unemployed too.
Last year, the German chancellor Gerhard Schröder pushed through a much-compromised set of welfare reforms designed to help claimants return to work. The reforms met a great deal of opposition from Schröder's own centre-left SPD, not to mention the nation's unions, who organised major street protests against the changes. While the size of the protesting crowds diminished greatly when the reforms were introduced in January, passions did not, as some rallies turned violent.
Schröder's critics on the right argue that the changes did not go far enough to make any real difference to Germany's stubborn levels of joblessness. It is likely that the left will claim that the chancellor's cuts punished the unemployed without addressing the causes of joblessness (which is often blamed on firms relocating German plants to low-tax economies in central Europe). However, while the five million figure is embarrassing for the chancellor - not to mention a great psychological shock for Germans, who not that long ago enjoyed unrivalled levels of prosperity - it may be too early to say his reforms failed. It took several years of high unemployment in Britain before joblessness levels began to fall in the 1980s - though Schröder's tinkering was nothing like the scale of Margaret Thatcher's reforms.
Mandelson Backs Budget Increase
An independent kind of guy
Britain's new trade commissioner Peter Mandelson demonstrated the independence that is supposed to come with his job today by backing demands for a big increase in the EU's budget.
Mandelson's old boss, Tony Blair, has called for a freeze in contributions to Brussels. The prime minister is backed by other prominent figures in the British cabinet, including chancellor Gordon Brown and foreign secretary Jack Straw. Germany and the Netherlands - two other big net contributors to the EU budget - have also grumbled about proposed increases in handouts to Brussels.
Britain wants all contributions capped at 1 percent of gross national income: Mandelson's new boss, commission president José Manuel Barroso, has demanded that wealthier nations contribute more to the budget.
Mandelson told the Independent that nations (like Britain) who call for economic and political reform in Brussels ought to take responsibility for providing support for these adjustments: Euro-code for Britain should put up or shut up about reforming the EU.
Eurocrats claim that more money is needed to pay for last year's expansion from 15 to 25 member states. The ten new members are not yet net contributors to the EU budget, and most are unlikely to become so for many years.
If the cash was distributed fairly there would be few complaints. However, the lion's share of EU cash pays for the rotten Common Agricultural Policy, which subsidises rich-nation agribusiness. A deal stitched up between France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schröeder last year means that French farmers will continue to benefit from big CAP handouts for the next ten years at least - so the money to stuff Polish farmers with similar subsidies will have to come from elsewhere in the EU budget.
Last year's Euro mantra, coined by previous commission president Romano Prodi, was "You can't have more Europe on less money." Eursoc hasn't heard this plaintive cry for a while: Perhaps, as we predicted, voters thought that less Europe, and less national income paid to Brussels, was a win-win situation.
