EU Referendum

A series of leaks on the progress of the war, and then a report on what appear to be plans for an expedited US withdrawal, have had the media abuzz with stories and analysis, but with no real consensus – a question of heat but very little light.

The first trigger was a Nato report leaked to the BBC, which suggested the Taliban in Afghanistan are being directly helped by the Pakistani security service (ISI), only to be followed by a predictable denial, with the Pakistani foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, dismissing the report as, "old wine in an even older bottle".

As to the US plans, the trigger here was a suggestion by US defence secretary Leon Panetta suggesting that US combat missions in Afghanistan would end in 2013. That, though, was quickly clarified when Panetta said that the US would keep fighting alongside Afghan troops, but would cede the lead role in combat operations.

Thus, US troops would remain "combat-ready" as the United States wound down its longest war, but the troops would largely shift to a train-and-assist role as Afghan forces took responsibility for security before an end-2014 deadline for full Afghan control.

By the time Panetta came up with this reassurance, however, the damage had already been done, with widespread reports, culled from the original leaked report, that the Taliban, "backed by Pakistan", expected to retake Afghanistan when coalition forces leave.

However, despite the flurry of media activity, one is tempted to say "what's new?". I don't think anyone who knows the region and its politics is under any illusions that the Pakistanis work, and have been working with Pashtun and other tribal factions, with Arab support and money, specifically but not exclusively the Haqqani network.

Nor is there anything particularly new about the US military planning gradually to hand over security responsibilities to the Afghan forces, then easing themselves out of the picture. And nor is there any secret that the Taliban expect to have a free run at taking over the country, once the infidels have departed. What else is there to say.

Well, the Canadian National Post has a stab at offering something different, noting that the problem is that ordinary Afghan villagers subscribe to local codes of politics and morality that are profoundly alien and offensive to Western ways.

It tells us that gender equality, religious pluralism, due process - all of these notions are meaningless gibberish to a society made up largely of illiterate goat herders and farmers, who view women and children as property, and non-Muslims as hated infidels. In this world, the real business of public life begins and ends at the local mosque or village council.

Thus we are informed that, if outsiders in Kabul and Washington have money and guns to give, they will take them. They might even permit a school or highway to be built in their district, and appear in a photo-op. But that's where it ends.

Closer to home, we have a superbly robust commentary from Simon Jenkins but, other than to project the view that the UK – alongside the US – might be positioning for a war against Iran, having learnt nothing from the failure of Afghanistan, he really does not have that much new to say.

Matt Cavanagh also has a go, in The Spectator, but he ends up reiterating sentiments expressed in earlier articles, an in particular his piece last November. His conclusion this time is that we now have an opportunity "to move towards a more honest and realistic debate about the Afghan campaign and its prospects of success, in public as well as private".

Considering that we have yet to have an honest and realistic debate about the Iraq war, it is perhaps a little rash to expect anything different of Afghanistan, especially as the view of the UK administration on the conduct of the war seems to be locked in aspic.

This we saw recently from Lord Astor of Hever, defence spokesman in the Lords, who told the upper house that military means alone would not bring about a more secure country, then saying:

We have always supported an Afghan-led political process to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, and we continue to encourage all parties to take forward reconciliation. We will continue to engage with our US colleagues on these important matters.

We are not going to get a clearer definition of the UK stance, and while there is nothing new here either, it is useful to note the acknowledgement that a political process is required "to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan", and that the military alone cannot close the deal.

In assessing current progress, as Cavanagh would have us do, it is useful to refer to the one of the great authorities on the nature of war, Carl von Clausewitz, and one of the most famous miss-quotations of all time: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means".

This is, in fact, an abbreviated heading in Book One of his famous treatise on the nature of war, whereas the text states something different, and different in an important respect. War, he writes, is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means.

This, Clausewitz expands upon in the rarely quoted Book Eight where, under the heading, "War is an instrument of policy", he tells us:

It is, of course, well-known that the only source of war is politics – the intercourse of governments and peoples; but it is apt to be assumed that war suspends that intercourse and replaces it by a wholly different condition, ruled by no law but its own.

Clausewitz then goes on to repeat his earlier aphorism, subtly improved declaring: "We maintain, on the contrary, that war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means". He then adds:

We deliberately use this phrase "with the addition of other means" because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs.

Changing the "by" into "with" completely changes the meaning of Clausewitz's aphorism, making war an overall part of the political process, and not something separate from it.

That, it seems, to me, the Taliban understand – and so do the Pakistanis and other regional players. It is something the colonial British understood, but not their successors or the Americans. While both play lip-service to a political solution, they do tend to treat the military activity as something different and distinct from the political process.

And thereby we find Lord Astor reiterating the reasons why the coalition efforts must fail. On the one hand, the separation of military and political efforts defies sense, failing as it does to recognise the Clausewitz teaching. But, worse still, the flaw is in seeking an "Afghan-led political process", which is still further separated from the military effort.

In the scheme of things, Afghan politics are not played out within the actual borders that none of the players actually recognise, but on a far wider tableau, which takes in the ambitions and aspirations of all the neighbouring states, the former state of Baluchistan (now absorbed into Pakistan and Iran), and of course, the great regional elephant in the room, India.

And that also is nothing particularly new – not on this blog. Unfortunately, the coalition got it wrong from the very start, and it is too late to fix it now.

COMMENT THREAD

As a person beset by irrational speeding laws, at one level I have every sympathy with Huhne. If you do the mileage, you get the points – it is almost unavoidable. Hence, my tenure in the EU parliament ended up in my getting banned under the totting-up procedure.

But, unlike the man is now alleged to have done, I would never have done likewise, dumping the blame on Mrs EUReferendum. It isn't British – not cricket even. You just don't do it. However irrational, loathsome and unjust the authorities might be - and they are all of those things - you take the punches.

That said, Dellers sums up the sentiment for the moment. But now Huhne has at last resigned, one's only regret is that he could not have done so much earlier, for reasons more directly associated with his disastrous performance as a cabinet minister.

COMMENT THREAD

Watermelons kill, but not just if you eat them. As Dellers will tell you in his new book (UK edition) of the same name, they kill wholesale. One of those ways is by the restrictions (amounting to an effective ban) on DDT, which has led to a resurgence of malaria.

As a result, Dellers avers, the Greens have been responsible for killing more people than Hitler. Amd that would now appear to be more true than ever. The Guardian says the disease kills twice as many people as previously thought – 1.2 million people a year.

It also raises urgent questions, says the paper, about the future of the troubled Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB and Malaria, which has provided the money for most of the tools to combat the disease in Africa, such as insecticide-impregnated bed nets and new drugs. The fund, The Guardian coyly tells us "is in financial crisis and has had to cancel its next grant-making round".

However, as always, there is much more to this than meet the eye. The $22.6 billion fund has been beset by corruption and maladministration and now the fund head has abruptly resigned, part of a management shakeup after multiple scandals severely rattled some of the biggest donors.

The cynic might ask whether the sudden publicity on the issue, and funds shortage, might be related. And not a few might puzzle (albeit silently, for such things dare not be said in the open) whether saving lives in Africa simply makes for problems elsewhere, through over-population and migration.

But the fact is, malaria kills disproportionate numbers of the economically active, and as Africa drags itself up by its bootstraps, it is these people it needs. The death of these people has been in part responsible of the economic blight, making the DDT ban all the more tragic.

But even more tragically, the lessons still have not been learned, as the EU continues to block progress and cause economic havoc. And this, of course, is the hidden story which the likes of The Guardian will never tell. Even last month, we saw echoes of the turmoil created by the DDT ban.

There lies the ultimate terror – when greens and bureaucrats combine, death follows in their wake.

COMMENT THREAD

You would have thought that, given the huge number of column inches devoted to the diverse and expensive defence procurement failures, the MSM might be interested in this government's proposals for remedying the system, delivered on Wednesday in the form of a White Paper.

The official announcement on the MoD Website makes the ostensible agenda interesting enough, telling us that the "Government" has set out its plans to prioritise investment in Science and Technology, "in order to ensure the UK's Armed Forces continue to have state-of-the-art technology, equipment and support, in a White Paper published today".

Apart from the Financial Times, however (and a small, down-page item in the business section of The Times), the MSM apparently no longer feels the need to comment on such matters – possibly because there is no opportunity any longer to make party political mischief and get a "biff-bam" slanging match going.

As to the Financial Times, it picks on one issue, which is also the focus of much of the specialist press, headlining: "MoD will no longer favour UK companies". The Ministry of Defence, it tells us:

… will no longer give UK companies priority over their foreign competitors when buying equipment and weapons for the armed forces. The only exceptions will be cases where buying British is essential to maintaining national security, Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, said in an interview. He made clear the MoD would not consider wider employment or industrial economic factors when it assessed whether a piece of equipment offered value for money.

Nevertheless, if the dailies largely ignore that issue, The Spectator gives a spot to Matt Cavanagh, who calls the White Paper the waste of another opportunity. We need clear and unapologetic government backing for a sector which, as the White Paper notes, employs 300,000 people and is a major player in a global market valued at £260 billion, says Cavanagh, adding:

In that respect, the timing of the White Paper could hardly have been worse. Yesterday brought the bad news that India has awarded preferred bidder status for its $10 billion-plus fighter contract to France's Rafale, in preference to the Eurofighter Typhoon in which Britain's BAE has a major stake. The White Paper makes the usual noises about ministers "doing their utmost" to support exports, but privately many in the industry are disappointed by the lack of help — especially given ministerial rhetoric in 2010 around reshaping our foreign policy around trade.

This long-awaited White Paper was a second chance for the government to demonstrate its seriousness about tackling the real problems in defence procurement. Instead we got feeble commitments of support and simplistic rhetoric about "buying off the shelf" in a hypothetical "open market" which, in relation to large defence equipment programmes, simply doesn't exist. Another opportunity wasted — for Defence, and for one of our better prospects for export-led growth.

But what Matt – and everybody else for that matter – is ignoring is not so much the elephant in the room, as a virtual stampede of elephants. These come in the guise of EU Directive 2009/81/EC "on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC".

To get a taste of what this is requiring, all we have to do is look at the recitals – two, three and four will suffice:

(2) The gradual establishment of a European defence equipment market is essential for strengthening the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base and developing the military capabilities required to implement the European Security and Defence Policy.

(3) Member States agree on the need to foster, develop and sustain a European Defence Technological and Industrial Base that is capability driven, competent and competitive. In order to achieve this objective, Member States may use different tools, in conformity with Community law, aiming at a truly European defence equipment market and a level playing field at both European and global levels.

They should also contribute to the in-depth development of the diversity of the European defence-related supplier base, in particular by supporting the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and non-traditional suppliers in the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base, fostering industrial cooperation and promoting efficient and responsive lower tier suppliers. In this context, they should take into account the Commission’s Interpretative Communication of 7 December 2006 on the application of Article 296 of the Treaty in the field of defence procurement and the Commission Communication of 5 December 2007 on a Strategy for a stronger and more competitive European defence industry.

(4) One prerequisite for the creation of a European defence equipment market is the establishment of an appropriate legislative framework. In the field of procurement, this involves the coordination of procedures for the award of contracts to meet the security requirements of Member States and the obligations arising from the Treaty.

Helpfully, albeit in an obscure footnote, the White Paper tells us that this Directive was brought into UK law as the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations on 21 August 2011. And thus, let's play "spot the difference". In that self-same White Paper, we learn that:

We are focused on ensuring best value-for-money and delivering the best equipment for the Armed Forces and the security services. That is why this paper sets out how we will use competition as our default position and why we will look at the domestic and global defence and security market for products that are proven, that are reliable, and that meet our current needs. This principle is, though, qualified by the need to take action to protect our technological advantage where essential for national security.

We believe that the best way for the UK defence and security industries to remain strong, with some of the most high-tech and advanced manufacturing facilities in the world, is to be competitive. That is why this Government will continue to support responsible defence and security exports; why we are helping to create the right conditions for companies in these sectors to invest in the UK, and why we will take significant steps to ensure small and medium sized companies can continue to deliver the innovation and flexibility we need. There was strong support for these actions in the consultation responses.

And so we get:

Wherever possible, we will seek to fulfil the UK's defence and security requirements through open competition in the domestic and global market, buying off-the-shelf where appropriate… we will also take action to protect the UK's operational advantages and freedom of action, but only where this is essential for our national security.

This is remarked upon by a trade journal, which remarks that the presumption is to buy on the basis of competition and best value, which may often mean "off the shelf", even if it's from manufacturers in France, the US, Argentina, Israel. Now, the journal observes:

… many procurement people would welcome this focus on value for money rather than preserving British jobs or capability, but it will be interesting to see whether this holds up the first time a UK manufacturer loses out and screams blue murder about jobs, national interest and so on. Look at the fuss about the Bombardier/Siemens train procurement, and that didn't have the emotive aspects that defence always carries.

But of course, it will hold up. British ministers are implementing EU law, and they are always going to obey their masters. And in this White Paper, they are providing an ex post facto explanation of how the procurement system is to be adapted in order to ensure absolute obedience.

This in governmental terms, is not a "wasted opportunity" as Cavanagh would aver. It is simply a statement of compliance, the sub-text, "we shall obey".

COMMENT THREAD

… even if the headline is slightly modified. You can't trust anybody these days.

COMMENT THREAD

Serbia, it appears, is taking a hammering. At least 11,000 villagers have been trapped by heavy snow and blizzards in Serbia's mountains, reports the AP, as the death toll from Eastern Europe's weeklong deep freeze rose to 122, many of them homeless people.

The stranded live in some 6,500 homes in remote areas that cannot be reached due to icy, snow-clogged roads. Emergency crews were pressing hard to try to clear the snow and deliver badly needed supplies in areas facing their harshest winter in decades. In some areas, it has been freezing cold or snowing for 26 days, and diesel fuel supplies used by snowploughs are running low.

COMMENT: "GREAT TURNABOUT" THREAD

It doesn't have one, according to The Independent. Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, says: "The eurozone is a slow-motion train wreck", not exactly a novel idea.

Howsoever, before we all get too excited, if Greece is any guide, none of us has any future either. Poverty and debt slavery is our destiny.

COMMENT THREAD

"There's a new mood in Parliament", writes Raedwald , who is commenting on a piece in the Failygraph on civil service powers and responsibilities. "Reform is on the wind. MPs are feeling their breeches for the first time in many years. The mandarinate may have a shock coming".

The Failygraph story is about the row developing over Margaret Hodge, as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and her treatment of civil servants, culminating in a letter of protest from former head of the civil service, Gus O'Donnell. Thus we are told:

The row has been brewing for some time. Last November, Mrs Hodge and her committee tore into Anthony Inglese, a top lawyer at HM Revenue and Customs. Asked whom he answered to as a civil servant, Inglese said mildly that he was accountable to his department. "No, you're not", retorted Mrs Hodge. "You're accountable to Parliament". She ordered Inglese to give the rest of his evidence on oath, warning him that he risked perjury if he gave incorrect answers. His request for "a minute’s time out" to consider was refused.

But the natural response to this is: "who cares"? The bulk of our power has been outsourced to Brussels, where the "colleagues" certainly are not accountable to parliament. This is a fight between two bald men over a comb.

Even if it were the case that the fight had meaning, and parliament emerged the winner, how does that serve us. Residual authority in this country resides not with parliament, but the executive, which has at its beck and call a payroll vote which keeps it in office.

Thus the cock may win the battle of the dunghill, but in the corner of the barn, farmer Dave sharpens the knives and selects the Sunday lunch.

On a broader scale, who of the bald men who emerges victorious, taking possession of the comb, has any relevance to us. Parliament could indeed win, but who does parliament represent? It certainly isn't me, or anything I could identify with for that matter. Largely, it seems to represent itself and its own interests.

In many senses, therefore, this is "smoke and mirrors", or "bread and circuses" if you prefer – without the bread and without the circuses. In short, it is an irrelevance – a distraction. Watching other people fight for power, when either way the power ends up in the wrong hands, is not a profitable occupation.

Those who believe in democracy – and know what it is - will understand this. Any outcome will not aid our progress towards democracy. But, if democracy is not the aim, it becomes rather necessary to decide who should be the custodians of power. This little bun fight is not the way – especially with Margaret Hodge at the helm.

COMMENT THREAD

BBC Radio 4's Today programme, The Guardian tells us, had an average weekly audience of 7.15 million in the last three months of 2011, proclaiming a great "boost" for the programme (see below).

This, we are told, is "a whisker away from its biggest ever listenership and just 90,000 behind Moyles on Radio 1, who had an audience of 7.24 million". Then we learn that: "Radio 4 insiders attributed Today's growing popularity to big news stories such as the faltering economy and fears of a double dip recession".


Methinks, though, we are seeing more than a little spin here. Go back to May last year and we see "record" audience figures of 7.03 million listeners for the first three months of 2011. Interestingly, back then, a Radio 4 spokeswoman attributed the rise in its audience to the big, breaking news that dominated the year's start, including the Japanese tsunami and the "Arab spring".

However, given the inherent errors in the sampling process, and the changes to the recording system (described by Autonomous Mind), that would suggest that there could be no significant difference between the beginning of last year and the end. Arguably, audience figures are flatlining.

Last May, we were thus equating BBC figures with Soviet tractor production figures. It seems nothing much has changed.

COMMENT THREAD

I was going to do a long piece on Afghanistan and Clausewitz, but it's too late and I'm too tired – it will have to wait until later today. However, I was also keeping an eye on the weather situation – which is getting interesting. Actually, it is not so much the weather as the media reaction to it.

A few years ago, in 2008, when Booker and I were charting the terrible winter weather throughout the world, the MSM was largely silent, still in the thrall of the warmists. But now, with what are quite moderate conditions for the UK (we've had it a lot worse), we get this (above) and much else of a similar nature - see below:


Reuters is a also keeping an eye on the Russian gas situation, as well as the mounting death toll in eastern and central Europe, with Ukraine having suffered badly in temperatures down to minus 33°C. Moscow is relatively balmy, enjoying daytime temperatures of a mere minus 22°C. Many sources we are in for a brutal weekend, right across Europe.

But, given the sometimes OTT coverage (parts of Britain in deepest winter colder than parts of Antarctica in the height of summer, shock!), it seems to me, we're going through the "switch". Having been for years pushing the global warming agenda, the newspapers (or some of them) are now in the market for "cold" and the warmists aren't getting a look in.

That could be very significant. Where the media leads, the politicians still tend to follow.

COMMENT THREAD

The Daily Mail has finally caught up with the idea of "naked streets", alternatively known as the "shared space" concept. You could have read about it on this blog though, in January 2007, after Owen Paterson, then shadow transport secretary, had been to Holland to look at its practical application.

Leave it long enough and the MSM does catch up – on some things – although even some of the most simple concepts seem to elude it. But I suppose a five-year head start is about right.

COMMENT THREAD

In April last year, we were confidently told that the administration was proposing to change the MoT frequency from one to two years. Notably absent from the report, of course, was any reference to the EU or any mention that road safety was an EU competence. It took, therefore, this blog to point out the EU dimension, when we wrote:

While there is no specific requirement for the UK to come into line (yet), the writing is on the wall, and any changes to the MOT legislation must be approved by the EU Commission. Thus, our "Eurosceptic" government is playing the usual trick. In anticipation of an EU requirement, it is bringing domestic legislation into line with the expected (but as yet undeclared) standard.

However, assailed by the safety nannies and the self-interest groups demanding that the existing interval be kept (the latter having a point, as they have invested hugely in testing equipment), the government has decided to back off and ditch the plans to cut the frequency - for the time being.


That the EU was considering harmonising roadworthiness tests (with the effect that the more general two-year interval would be adopted) was clearly signalled in this document (see page 8, last para), latterly (in September 2011) endorsed by the EU parliament. But, reading between the lines, it now seems that EU-wide plans have stalled, pending evaluation of new testing technologies and systems.

What appears to have happened is that the British administration, aware that it will now be some time before the EU commission issues definitive proposals on testing frequency, has opted to avoid confrontation, and is going for the status quo, for the time being.

The ironic thing is the proposed change - in what in fact is part of the Single Market acquis - was also part of this administration's drive to sweep away red tape in what was described as a "bonfire of regulations" aimed at "stimulating business and economic growth". And it was actually only a week ago, at Davos, that The Boy was attacking the "madness" of European regulations, calling for the "colleagues" to "stop throttling growth with excessive bureaucracy".

So, as it stands, in one very clear example where the EU commission was in due course planning to reduce the amount of bureaucracy in a specific sector, with the UK jumping the gun, The Boy's administration has drawn back from the process – until it is instructed to carry it out by the EU - while all the time criticising the EU for its "red tape".

Does one ever get the impression that we are living in a mad world?

COMMENT THREAD

Looking at the word "therapist", have you ever thought of what happens if you put a space after the "the"? It rather changes your perception of the "profession".

And reading Your Freedom and Ours, it looks as if Hannan seems to feel he has been a victim of one … of the political variety. It really is fascinating to see how intelligent men can be so stupid.

COMMENT THREAD

Tim Montgomerie, content partner with The Guardian Comment Network, is now also infesting the Right Minds blog on the Daily Mail website.

If you ever wanted an example of political convergence, and a lack of distinction in the political spectrum, that is it. With the Guardian currently hosting Daniel Hannan's impostor and Adrian Hilton, this is a classic example of the reorientation of politics. A homogeneous political class is emerging, equally at home in the Mail and the Guardian. As the distinction between right and left disappears, and we get the "above-the-line" caste, reinforcing the "them-and-us" divisions in society, prattling indiscriminately.

What brings the gullible Montgomerie to the Mail is The Boy's amazing technicolour veto, and a lament that "fings ain't wot they used to be". And a measure of how far sunny Tim got sucked into the mythology is his first sentence – error compounded by error (above). No, we shriek, Cameron did not veto a treaty. The treaty did not exist. No, the treaty had not been agreed by every other member state. The treaty did not exist.

But then, with the unpardonable arrogance of his caste, Montgomerie goes on confidently to assert that, "As a result of his veto, Britain rejoiced". No, "Britian" did not "rejoice" – just he, the idiot MSM and his gang of fellow-travellers.  They were the ones "rejoicing", while we stood around in amazed disbelief.

There is more truth, however, in Timmy's bold claim that, "Many on both sides of the great European debate – sceptics and enthusiasts – concluded that Britain was now in the EU's departure lounge and it was only a matter of time before Britain formed a very different relationship with Brussels".

Problematically though, as Mary Ellen Synon pointed out yesterday, the claque had no grounds whatever for this conclusion. The delusion represents only the thinking of a self-styled political commentator, who truly believes that the Conservative Party has become "fundamentally Eurosceptic". Nevertheless, he does not dare to define what he means, for fear that it will reveal that there is not a fag-paper between his party's sceptics and philes.

And still he prattles on about a "different relationship with Europe", thereby displaying the fundamental inability of his caste to understand that you cannot have a "relationship" with yourself. The United Kingdom is in the European Union. We are not related to it. We are part of it. It is part of us.

Demonstrating thus another characteristic of the breed, Timmy provides evidence that his caste inhabits its own impervious bubble. The members cannot learn anything and never change their views on anything. They simply adapt facts to fit their preconceived notions, so as not to disturb their comfort zones.

No wonder the poor lad is now so confused. His little narrative has been shattered and he is surveying the wreckage, struggling to rebuild it. In time, perhaps with the help of the europlastic Open Europe, he will. Then we will be treated to another fantasy that passes for political commentary. How sad is that?

COMMENT THREAD

With a long-awaited debt swap deal largely almost secured, Athens' focus is now squarely on the reform front. Failure to persuade lenders it can follow through on its pledges could put both the bond swap and the country's latest bailout at risk.

That is the Reuters "take" but The Guardian is suggesting that it very far from being a done deal. Prime minister Lucas Papademos is calling for a "crisis meeting" to ask backers for further concessions after "tough and honest' discussions in Brussels and Frankfurt".

The clue to the problem, though, is in the Reuters report. A senior Greek banker says a final accord on the bond swap was on hold until Athens could show it was "serious about tackling reforms".

"The debt swap agreement is ready, but it will not be announced before the end of the week and until the government has made certain commitments on reforms, labour issues and the pension system," says the anonymous banker. "By delaying the debt swap, European partners are putting pressure on the government and political leaders to make certain commitments".

But WSJ is getting bored with it all, and is just taking the mick:

And Angela Merkel said, "Let there be jobs and growth." And lo, there were jobs and there was growth. And Angela Merkel said, "Let there be closer fiscal coordination on a non-Treaty, intergovernmental basis with penalties for sinners to be administered by the European Court of Justice." And lo, there was that, too. And Angela Merkel said, "Let Greece prove itself capable of meaningful structural reforms before we give them another, €130 billion bailout".

And the Lord chuckled.

The truth is that no one really believes anything about Greece any more – the media goes through the motions of reporting the latest twists and turns, but the real agenda is default, the expectation still being "when not if". Then, there is Portugal, and we start all over again.

COMMENT THREAD

… that we've had all this global warming. It is terrifying to think what it would have been like without it. And it's not just Norway. Alaska has suffered the coldest January on record in some part – although we can happily report that two ships going away from Nome have made it to open waters.

Elsewhere, it has been grim. Temperatures in parts of Ukraine fell to minus 16°C (3°F) during the day and minus 23°C (minus 10°F) in the night. Authorities opened 1,500 shelters to provide food and heat and closed schools and nurseries. More than 17,000 people have sought help in such shelters in the past three days.

In Poland, at least ten people froze to death as the cold reached minus 26°C (minus 15°F) on Monday. Warsaw city authorities decided to place more than 40 heaters in the busiest city transport stops to help waiting passengers keep warm.

City authorities in the Czech capital of Prague set up tents for an estimated 3,000 homeless people. Freezing temperatures also damaged train tracks, slowing railway traffic. In central Serbia, three people died and two more were missing, while 14 municipalities were operating under emergency decrees. Efforts to clear roads blocked by snow were hampered by strong winds and dozens of towns faced power outages.

And the "colleagues" will be looking forward to a bit of warmth (and Polish shale gas) as Gazprom reduces the flow of gas to Europe because of the cold snap. Supplies into Italy via the Austrian border have been reduced by ten percent compared with normal levels.

Although no one is panicking (yet), it is a timely reminder of how close to the brink supplies can get, when Europe relies on Russia for 30 percent of its gas.

COMMENT: "REALITY BITES BACK" THREAD

France's Rafale has emerged as preferred bidder in a $11 billion contest to supply India with 126 fighters, says Reuters. They have undercut the rival Eurofighter and boosted French hopes of a long-awaited first export contract for its premier combat jet.

Clearly, the bribes aid we've given them hasn't worked out. But why on earth are we giving £1.4 billion in aid to a country that can afford to equip its air force to the tune of $11 billion, and isn't even buying British?

It gets even murkier when one realises that India itself is giving $5 billion in aid to African countries, aimed at expanding trade relations. The Indians are sensible enough to use their aid to get economic leverage … we just dole out money we haven't got, and get nothing in return – except Rajendra Pachauri.

And how droll it is that after Sarkozy sneered at Britain, claiming that "the UK has no industry left", we see a British prime minister claim today that "Britain actually has a higher percentage of industry than France does".

But, says The Boy, "we think that we need to rebalance even further; we want to see a growth in manufacturing, technology and aerospace … ". Sadly, it rather looks as if Sazkozy is doing the rebalancing.


And it was such a pity about The Boy's trade drive. It didn't seem to work too well, did it? The "partner of choice" seems to have moved over to the other side of the Channel - at least as far as the IAF is concerned.

(I don't know why, incidentally, that the video shows Mirage jets as well, but there you go ... it's Euronews.)

COMMENT THREAD

Gradually, the text of today's the Hansard is being put online . One of the latest offerings of interest is this:

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): Will the Prime Minister explain what it is that he has vetoed?

The Prime Minister: I have vetoed Britain's involvement in a treaty. As a result, it is not an EU treaty. We had in front of this House the Maastricht EU treaty and the Lisbon EU treaty; we had Amsterdam and we had Nice. All of those were treaties that Britain was involved in as a member of the EU, and they were EU treaties with the full force of the law. This is not like that; this is outside the European Union. It is an arrangement that has been reached by 25 other countries and we are not involved. As a result, we have safeguarded Britain's interests, which could have been put at risk by a new EU treaty.

The answer is gibberish. Consider, though, that the current intergovernmental treaty is effectively identical to the treaty that would have been produced as an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty, had not Cameron given the "colleagues" the opportunity to go outside the EU framework. It would thus be interesting to learn how, and in what respects, Britain's interests have been safeguarded by this version, when they would not have been by an EU version.

Mary Ellen Synon reckons The Boy fudged it just to make sure he was not faced with an EU referendum. Cameron's "courage" was Cameron dodging a bullet, she says. "Which is to say, a quick manoeuvre to his own political benefit". It was not so much Britain's interests that he was safeguarding, as his own.

And we get a flavour of that in this exchange:

Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Will the Prime Minister explain the difference between a veto and an opt-out?

The Prime Minister: There is a very important difference. Let us consider what happened with Maastricht, for instance. There was a European Union treaty to which Britain was a full signatory. We opted out of certain parts of it, but we were still subject to a huge amount of additional EU law. That is why there were so many agonised debates in the House about whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. The same can be said of all EU treaties. The difference in this case is that there is no EU treaty. We are not going to put something in front of the House, and nothing will be voted on, so it will not affect the UK.

One gets a clear sense of relief from Cameron that the treaty does not go in front of the House, and "nothing will be voted on". That gets him off the hook, even if he is now impaled on another one.

COMMENT: "MISLEADING THE HOUSE" THREAD

Confirming our suspicions that Myrtle has been kidnapped, we now find that his impersonator is writing in The Guardian. That settles it beyond doubt.

Do we start a campaign for real Hannan?

COMMENT: "NOT THAT STUPID" THREAD

Hotter summers could lead to between 580-5900 deaths above the average per year by the 2050s, says the Defra Climate Risk Assessment. But it also says that milder winters could lead to 3,900-24,000 fewer premature deaths by the 2050s, significantly more than those forecast to die as a result of hot weather.

Do we really want a government policy dedicated to increasing the price of energy when we are expecting this?

COMMENT: "REALITY BITES BACK" THREAD

When I checked the business for the day on the parliamentary website, there was no reference to a statement on the European Council meeting. With a number of newspaper sites also reporting that there would be a statement "tomorrow", I have misled myself and others into thinking the statement would be tomorrow. However, the statement was today, at just after 3.30pm, and is now up on the No 10 site.

True to form, we are told by The Boy that, "I went to the Council last December prepared to agree a treaty of all 27 countries but only if there were proper safeguards for Britain". He then tells us, to the raucous cheers of the MPs: "But I did not get those safeguards. So I vetoed the Treaty".

Then we get:

As a result Eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements outside the EU treaties for strengthening budgetary discipline, including ensuring there are much tougher rules on deficits. So at this Council 25 EU Member States agreed a new Treaty outside of the EU. Britain and the Czech Republic have not signed up. And we will not be taking part.

So, as we saw last night, The Boy is directly claiming to have "vetoed the Treaty".

There is no equivocation or qualification here but, in order for him to have "vetoed the Treaty", there must have been a treaty to veto. Further, as we know, a veto can only be exercised within the context of an IGC. A European Council acts by simple majority.

We know, however, that there was no IGC convened, and as the government's own spokesman tells us, "There was … no text of a Treaty which was vetoed; it was rather the process of amending the European Union Treaties to this end which was vetoed".

By any measure, The Boy is misleading the House, even without taking into account the spokesman's error, whereby a process cannot be vetoed. Have we got to the final stage in the deterioration of Parliament, where a man purporting to be a prime minister can make things up as he goes along?

COMMENT THREAD

It is not only the Tory europlastics who are going to be after The Boy. According to The Guardian , the Baby Miliband is going to have a go as well, with claims that the country has been "sold down the river".

Miliband is a bit late noticing that - it happened decades ago. But the pincer movement "could be uncomfortable for the prime minister", says the paper, although I somehow doubt it. There will be the usual low-grade huff 'n' puff, but all we will get out of it will be some well-rehearsed soundbites.

Miliband is already saying of The Boy, " … it's a phantom veto and, frankly, he's completely mishandled these negotiations." He accuses Cameron of "publicity-seeking opportunism", which is a bit rich coming from that quarter, and probably easily slapped down.

However, for those interested in low-grade entertainment, and can't deal with X-factor, this is shaping up to be an interesting bit of drama.

COMMENT: "LA REVOLTE" THREAD

Despite the hubris (or because of it?), The Boy is facing a gathering of the clans over his U-turn. "Right wing Tory MPs", we are told, "were due to meet in Westminster to plot how to make clear their unhappiness ahead of a statement by Mr Cameron in the Commons tomorrow".

So it is tomorrow that The Boy will attend upon The House to give his account of the proceedings in Brussels, and it is then – presumably – that we will see the fruits of the Tory "revolt". In fact, though, nothing much will happen. The Tory europlastics are far too compromised and, insofar as they are still blathering about the famous (non-) veto, they lost the plot before the game had even started.

We are now in the land of make-believe: a pretend rebellion over a pretend veto, with a pretend media keeping the score, the result of which will be completely irrelevant as the "colleagues" continue to run rings round The Boy. And that is the only constant here ... the "colleagues" set out to get their treaty. They got it. End of. At a European level, the rest is histrionics.

However, there is another reality here. "Cast-Iron" Cameron has been seen yet again to mess up over "Europe". The popular perception is that he promised a referendum on Lisbon and then resiled. He "vetoed" a treaty and then lets it get through. For his next trick?

I wonder if The Boy is aware of the phrase "three strikes and you're out"? He ain't doing so well is the lad - his credibility is shot to pieces.

COMMENT THREAD

We don't have a great deal of time for Myrtle, but we know that he is not this stupid. The only thing we can surmise is that he has been kidnapped, with the villain taking over his blog and impersonating him.

The Hannan I knew had brains enough to know that were was no veto, and that the answer to the current mess is not an in/out referendum.

One assumes that the kidnapper(s) must be linked in some way to People's Pledge, as this is the outfit that is being promoted, one that is wasting good money on something we are unlikely to get and which, if we did, we would probably not win.


But what do we make of this man, a man who is now maintaining that he did veto the EU treaty? "We vetoed an EU treaty in December," he says. "Nothing changes the fact that we were confronted by an EU treaty and we vetoed that treaty", he says. "There isn't a Brussels EU treaty, it doesn't exist, I vetoed it", he adds, then re-emphasising the point in response to a BBC questioner: "There isn't an EU treaty because I vetoed it".

The man is even now contradicting his own spokesman. The Smethurst said: "There was … no text of a Treaty which was vetoed; it was rather the process of amending the European Union Treaties to this end which was vetoed".

Yet the media – during the press conference - didn't challenge these amazing assertions. Some of the questions following The Boy's statement were even about bankers' bonuses. That is the media for you, the Fourth Estate, guardians of democracy, swooning all over the man. Truly pathetic. But then, there's no swoon like a media swoon, writes Peter Hitchens.

COMMENT THREAD

A propos this, read this. Via Autonomous Mind, who gave me the tip about Gene Sharp, Witterings from Witney shows us what we must do.

COMMENT THREAD

These deaths are just the headline cases. How many more die from that silent killer, hypothermia, without anyone recording the event as such? When the differential mortality figures come in, what will be the seasonal excess?

But even with just the headline mortality, the point is made that cold kills. Defra and its greenie friend may make the case for increased deaths due to global warming. They, however, are talking about potential risks, conditional on warming that is no longer happening. We are talking about the reality.

COMMENT THREAD

There is a certain amount of hyperventilation on the blogosphere, accompanied by a significant number of e-mails in my inboxes, drawing my attention to strikes and unrest in Italy (and especially Sicily), with suggestions that we could be looking at the start of a revolution.

However, before drawing too many conclusions from current events, it is always a good idea to look at the recent past - as in the second of the "cuts" above: that is Italy in December 2007.

The point is that industrial unrest is a standard background feature of Italian politics – it is easier to record the periods when there were not major strikes in that benighted country. That does not in any way indicate that great political changes are afoot.

In fact, what is missing here is any sense of a political movement. We are not in the 1920s and 30s, when the epic battles between Socialism, Communism and Fascism were being played out. There are few "street" issues, currently, that have any profound political significance. Largely, we are seeing the projection of self interest and self-protection (such as protecting pension rights),

But, as we wrote in December, it is unlikely now that we are going to see the archetypal revolution, and especially not one preceded by waves of strikes and industrial unrest. The world has moved on and we do things differently now – in Europe, at any rate.

The future is probably going to be this, or something very similar. In many respects, this is already happening. By contrast, the wave of street demonstrations and strikes we are seeing at the moment is just political fluff – false alarms.

COMMENT THREAD

Bruno Waterfield says that Britain has officially dropped its opposition to the use of EU institutions to administer and enforce a eurozone fiscal pact. The Tory europlastics will be cross, their leader now stripped of his eurosceptic mask. That effectively snuffs out even the Tory version of the "veto". It is a deceased veto, dead without even being born.

This is confirmed by the AFP agency, which seems to be inventing even newer non-vetoes, Cameron, not for the use of. Britain "will not veto the use of European Union institutions by the other 26 members of the bloc as they push forward a new fiscal pact which excludes London", it says.

Apparently, though, it is citing Willie Hague, who is saying that Britain has "real legal concerns" about the use of the ECJ under the new treaty arrangements, but "would reserve its position for now". He told BBC radio: "If the use of the EU institutions at any point threatens Britain's fundamental rights under the EU treaties or damages our vital interests such as the single market then we would have to take action about that, including legal action."

Translated, that definitely means that Cameron is to take no action.


Nick Wood in the Daily Mail seems to be up to speed on this: "Backsliding" will be a word not far from the lips of Eurosceptic MPs as they anxiously scrutinise David Cameron's foray into the Brussels bearpit today, he writes, adding such gems as: "Dave is in danger of being outmanoeuvred by a European ruling class …", and: "Dave's Brussels triumph looks more threadbare by the day …".

"Once again", concludes Wood, "we are muddling through in the EU slipstream". And so it will always be, as long as we have a europhile masquerading as our prime minister. Yet they are still calling him "Teflon Cameron" over at Tory Boy Blog, although they acknowledge that "backsliding on the veto, would provide the conditions for a major revolt".

Well, it looks as if "Teflon" has met his Brillo pad. However, Duncan Smith is still being quoted as saying: "I absolutely trust the prime minister on this, I know where he stands".

And don't we all?

"Senior Conservative backbencher" Bernard Jenkin thus has the measure of the man. According to the Evening Standard, he says: "This is a retreat. What is the difference between refusing to sign the treaty of 27 and then allowing the hijacking of the EU institutions with a treaty of 17 plus?"

Are the Tories revolting?

COMMENT: "FIDDLING AROUND" THREAD

Booker is not the only one to notice that Obama has gone shy about "climate change". Maxwell T. Boykoff in The Washington Post has picked it up as well, calling it a "dangerous shift" in the rhetoric. Asking "what happened" to the terms "climate change" and "global warming", Boykoff observes that they have nearly disappeared from the political vocabulary,

A recent study at Brown University looked specifically at the Obama administration's language and calls for "clean energy" and "energy independence" now occupied the terrain. Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: "The phrases 'climate change' and 'global warming' have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena".

This somewhat ties in with a report from Reuters last week, which noted that the United Nations "earth summit" scheduled for June in Rio is also abandoning "climate change" in favour of setting goals for "sustainable development".

This rather confirms the inherent flexibility in the green objectives, with "climate change" being but one issue in the UN's ambitious "Agenda 21" programme. This, in fact, stems from the Bruntland Report in 1987, which talks of "interlocking crises", which enables activists to switch from one heading to another, which still pursuing the same overall game plan.

Changing the rhetoric, therefore, gives the Greens tactical flexibility and a degree of resilience, enabling them to reflect the public mood and political realities – more so in the US. There, it would seem, if "climate change" is encountering resistance, the people can be sold "energy independence". But the underlying agenda remains the same.

In the UK, though, there seems to be less flexibility. Even while the Mail on Sunday, the same edition is covering the British administrations "first national risk assessment of climate change", warning us that – quite literally – some of us are going to die (5,900 every year – it would seem).

Given that the UK has been more committed than the US to tackling climate change, and for longer, it maybe will take longer to change the rhetoric. Already, though, we see multiple job adverts for "sustainability officers" (and variations), more so than climate change vacancies.

However, the purists are not happy. Rebranding is all very well but Boykoff complains that calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. "The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it", he says. "And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can't alter the fact that, 'climate change' or not, the climate is changing".

Perhaps, though, rebranding is not necessary. After all, global cooling is also "climate change", even if one suspects that our response to cooling might be a tad different from how we deal with the proclaimed but non-existent warming.

COMMENT THREAD

The man who doesn't know what a veto is, is employed by the Failygraph, it seems, to keep watch "on Gordon Brown and the Labour government". It is always good to know that our MSM journalists are on the ball.

COMMENT THREAD

One really should not take any pleasure in other peoples' misfortune, but it is virtually impossible not to smile at the idea that the "colleagues'" informal European Council tonight might be disrupted by strikes in Brussels.

The news of possible disruption comes via The Guardian, the Associated Press and the Evening Standard, and others. They are telling us that public transport will be halted and flights disrupted, and even the Eurostar Brussels service is to be suspended for the day.

No doubt most of the "colleagues" will be able to avail themselves of military flights if need be, and the federal police are well practised in shepherding high-speed convoys of limousines down the motorway into the European quarter. If need be, the heads of state can be flown into Charleroi under military control, and brought closer to town by helicopter.

The problem, if there is one, will be for the media and all the thousands of hangers-on who attend upon European Council meetings. But even if the disruption is minimal, the irony will not be lost – the strikes are in protest against the austerity packages which the "colleagues" have adopted as one of their main weapons in their attempts to salvage the euro.

Even then, the main focus of this salvage operation – Greece – is not formally on the agenda. That means that the audacious suggestion, proposed by the German economics minister, that the Greek puppet government should relinquish control of its budget policy, will not be discussed in plenary sessions. You can bet though that the sharp reaction from Greece, in rejecting the idea, will trigger plenty of discussion in les couloirs.

The main agenda item, according to the invitation letter, is a continuation of "efforts to ensure financial stability and fiscal consolidation", which means that draft treaty will almost certainly be discussed.

But there will be one person there who perhaps would be happy if the unions did their worst, and prevented the meeting from happening. This is David Cameron who yesterday was cast as being ready to withdraw his opposition to the use of the EU institutions to administer and enforce aspects of the new treaty.

Now, however, despite the Financial Times maintaining that Cameron remains in a conciliatory mood, we are being told that work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has "insisted" that Britain would continue to block the use of EU institutions for these purposes. This rather puts The Boy on the spot. Either he must anger the "colleagues", or upset the Tory Party rank and file who are desperate to hang onto the illusion that their leader is a eurosceptic.

On the other hand, with the rare intervention of Charles Kennedy, the Lib-dims are getting uppity. Kennedy, bolstered by The Clegg, wants The Boy "to take an active and confident role at the heart of the European Union". He must "never again isolate Britain as he did at last month's summit when he wielded the British veto".

Given these conflicting demands, it would be rather convenient for The Boy if strikes did stop play, even if that is rather unlikely. More likely the meeting will take place and we will get another glorious fudge – in public at least – which takes us no further forward. In the meantime, someone needs to teach Duncan Smith some history. He is going round telling people that "lack of democratic freedoms is what caused the Second World War", which is not exactly how I saw it.

That is in the context of Duncan Smith warning against the EU "fiddling around" with democracy, in its plans for Greece. But there should be no concern on this account. The very last thing the "colleagues" will be fiddling about with is democracy. That departed a long time ago.

COMMENT THREAD

After several attempts, a reader has finally extracted from the government on "full details of the Treaty which was vetoed by the Prime Minister at the European Council meeting on 9 December 2011".

The Keeper of the Answers is Roger Smethurst, Head of Knowledge and Information Management at the Cabinet Office, a deity who must enjoy the cocktail circuit where, one presumes, lesser mortals fall to their knees in awe, stunned that such a Grand Personage should exist.

Howsoever, the Mighty Smethurst tells us that the European Council (not a "summit", you will note) was considering a suggestion made at the meeting to amend the European Union Treaties to create reinforced fiscal and economic rules for the members of the Eurozone.

This, of course, we knew, but The Smethurst is just setting the scene. The Mighty One goes on to tell us that the Prime Minister (in capitals) "would not agree to this process without certain safeguards for Britain", and that "these safeguards were not agreed by others".

And now comes not The Knowledge but The Holy Spin. Since all Member States have to agree to any changes to the European Union Treaties, intones The Mighty Smethurst, "this amounted to a veto". As a result, we are told, Eurozone countries and others "are now making separate arrangements for coordinating their budgets through a separate Treaty".

Thus we are dutifully informed by The Smethurst that: "There was therefore no text of a Treaty which was vetoed; it was rather the process of amending the European Union Treaties to this end which was vetoed".

In response, one might say that "dishonest" is perhaps the mildest epithet we could use, but it sounds more restrained and sober than dismissing The Mighty Smethurst as a liar. But that he is, as the treaty itself (which he calls in aid) makes him out to be. Smethurst actually refers to the Treaty of the European Union, Article 48, the relevant part of which states:

The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties … If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission … [or] a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

Thus, the process of amending a Treaty is the convening of a "Convention" or an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), with the decision made in each case by a simple majority vote of the European Council. In other words, there is no veto on the process of amending a treaty … the process is determined by majority vote. It was not amenable to a veto and Cameron could not therefore have vetoed it.

Thus, never perhaps in history have we seen a press corps so completely and utterly mislead itself, showing its profound lack of knowledge of EU procedures, and its complete inability to learn.

But, as we see from Your Freedom and Ours and Witterings from Witney, the process of self-delusion continues, its latest contributor being Iain Martin in the Sunday Failygraph. There, oblivious to the reality, he asks: "Is David Cameron about to water down his famous EU veto?", a fatuous question but one which confronts an interesting development.

To appreciate this fully, we must step back to the night of 8/9 December, when The Boy was confronted with his dilemma, and having told the "colleagues" that he was minded to block any treaty revisions (which he could do once the treaty had been drafted, but hadn't been then), they decided to do what they had always intended to do in the first place – to go for a veto-proof "International Treaty".

This, however, still left The Boy with something of a card to play in what was a very weak hand – a block on the use of the EU institutions to administer and enforce aspects of the new treaty, something that the blathering Tory Boy Blog was terribly keen for him to do, otherwise, in their terms, the "veto" was pointless.

That brings us back to Iain Martin, who perceives that The Boy is to remove his objections to the use of the institutions. This is no great discovery as it was flagged up in The Guardian last Friday, amounting in this paper's terms to a major U-turn.


The effect, to the dismay of The Tory Boys is to make the "non-veto" even nonner than before, but since The Boy had such a weak hand – even despite the intervention of The Mighty Smethurst - there was perhaps little else he could do.

Sadly for him, as the "colleagues" run rings round him, all that is left to The Boy is to dream of his amazing technicolour veto, the veto that never was. And even in the minds of his most enthusiastic fans, it is also ceasing to be.

It was fun while it lasted.

COMMENT THREAD

The Mail may be hyperventilating, but it is always such fun rubbing Viner's nose in it. And for all that, even in Finland, where they are more used to such things, cold is a dangerous beast. But now there is no more warming, and snow is getting more common, we'd better get used to that idea.

COMMENT THREAD