Arctic+ice+02347[i-Arctic+ice+02347]Published by Canada.com is a jolly little tale about how the EU has taken it upon itself to declare the Arctic region part of Europe's "immediate vicinity" and thus invite itself as a party to talks over the future of polar exploitation.

Even though the commission concedes that the European Union has "no direct coastline on the Arctic Ocean", having decided on this fabled, "immediate vicinity" status, it is thus proposing that all nations which do actually have direct coastlines should conform with "binding international standards" to govern offshore oil extraction. And, of course, the EU should have a hand in framing those "standards".

This move, says Canada.com (rather appropriately under the circumstances) is likely to prompt "a cold stare" from Canada and some other polar nations. But, undeterred, the Commission has still gone ahead an issued a report asserting its growing interest in the natural resources and environmental health of "the rapidly melting Arctic Ocean".

This, the commission proudly declares, its "first step towards and EU Arctic Policy", which it believes is "an important contribution to implementing the Integrated Maritime Policy for the EU."

To that effect, it has identified three main "policy objectives", which are: protecting and preserving the Arctic in unison with its population (presumably the polar bears); promoting sustainable use of resources; and contributing to "enhanced Arctic multilateral governance".

To bolster its claims to being a party to this "enhanced Arctic multilateral governance", it has opened a "thematic website", which proudly offers an "action plan" for the "EU and the Arctic region".

There, it tells us that the EU is inextricably linked to the Arctic Region (hereafter referred to as the Arctic) by a unique combination of history, geography, economy and scientific achievements. Three member states - Denmark (Greenland), Finland and Sweden - have territories in the Arctic. Two other Arctic states - Iceland and Norway - are members of the European Economic Area. Furthermore, Canada, Russia and the United States are strategic partners of the EU.

The problem for the ever-ambitious EU is that Finland and Sweden, as well as the EU-associated "economic partner" Iceland do not have Arctic Ocean coastlines. Those three nations were not invited to attend a Greenland summit in May that resulted in the five-nation Ilulissat Declaration - an explicit rejection of any new multilateral frameworks for governing future economic activity in the Arctic.

While noting that Canada and the four other signatories to the Ilulissat Declaration have committed to the "orderly settlement of any overlapping claims" in the Arctic, the commission's report pointedly states that "since then, several of them have announced steps extending or affirming their national jurisdiction and strengthening their Arctic presence."

This, of course, simply will not do for the commission. National jurisdiction, as we all know, is an anathema to the EU, not least because, "Climate change might bring increased productivity in some fish stocks and changes in spatial distributions of others."

Even worse, "New areas may become attractive for fishing with increased access due to reduced sea ice coverage. For some of the Arctic high seas waters there is not yet an international conservation and management regime in place." This, the commission says, with more than a hint of desperation, "might lead to unregulated fisheries." You can sense rather than see the stress on the word "unregulated", the ultimate of all horrors.

One is almost tempted to snigger quietly at the back of the room at the chutzpah of these people, except they are serious. They will keep plugging away in the hope that they wear down the other players and eventually get their way.

However, since much of the new EU policy is predicated on the premise that there is that "rapidly melting Arctic Ocean", perhaps someone might do them a favour and take the commission for a trip into the ice fields and show them what we can all see from the satellite pics – that the Arctic Ocean ain't melting.

Whoever does this kind deed, though, would do us all an even greater favour by leaving them all there.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 00:57 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

Barnier+Proll[i-Barnier+Proll]The BBC – the only MSM outlet to report it so far – heralds the news with "EU reaches deal on farm reforms", telling of "marathon all-night talks" between member states before a hotly contested deal was reached by a qualified majority vote.

Of the agencies, AFP also reports it but the rest of the media seem entirely uninterested.

That tells you a great deal about modern governance, but it also tells as much about the EU. Originally, it was extremely nervous about using the r-word, calling it a "health check". Then, agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel was telling us that the process underway was a more "nuanced" approach aimed at a way of achieving "a better way of handling available resources."

So little did the general body politic – to say nothing of the media – actually care though that, yesterday the "colleagues" had abandoned the euphemism and come right out with the spin, openly declaring that they were, once again, reforming the Common Agricultural Policy.

But, as we pointed out earlier, this is tinkering at the margins, with some technical alterations and tweaks, continuing the process started almost as soon as the CAP was introduced, some time in the long distant past - 1968 or thereabouts.

So it was that on Brussels yesterday, totally anonymous officials discussed arcane and technical detail, coming blinking into the sunlight, or whatever, waving their bits of paper, claiming another "triumph" – to universal indifference. No doubt our agriculture minister was there – I am not sure I even know who he (or she) is any more, of even if we still have one. It hardly seems to matter any more.

The "colleagues", however, obviously care enough to spin the result, but very few other people do. This once great agricultural nation, which still has a massive and vital agricultural industry, no longer has an agricultural policy. That is "done in Brussels" so we, and especially that sad little institution called parliament, don't need to bother about it anymore.

In the fullness of time – at this rate – everything of any importance will be "done in Brussels", relieving our politicians of the need to do any serious work at all, or take any responsibility for their actions, other than hold great debates on their salaries and expenses, the latest round of failures of Hackney social services - and the next steps in legalisating or banning prostitution. Don't tell the "colleagues" though. The Strasbourg whores might get very angry.

But the truth is, when it comes to what used to be great matters of state, no one really cares. And that is why we're going down the tubes.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 13:25 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

TheTaxmanIsWatching[i-TheTaxmanIsWatching]… and laughing all the way to the bank.

But, as always when dealing with "climate change" the media lose what little sense they have (which is not a great deal) as their brains dribble out of their backsides and they comprehensively miss the point.

Thus does The Guardian complain about the government's first auction of the EU's "carbon permits" under its fatuous Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in terms of the UK "undermining" the climate fight by keeping the cash. "Receipts of up to £60m should be earmarked for 'green' projects as in other European nations," it tells us some "observers" are saying.

In similar terms, the Times retails a headline proclaiming, "Protests as carbon permits auction raises £54m", telling us that: "The Government has provoked anger by saying proceeds of sale will not necessarily be used to tackle climate change issues."

With all the blather about tax cuts to kick-start the economy and drive the nation out of recession, though, what neither of these idiot newspapers tells us is that this money (which seems to vary between £54-60 million) is a tax – a brand new tax that will be clawed from everybody's electricity bills, just at a time when they can least afford it.

The money comes from the electricity generating companies who have been forced to buy four million permits at a rate of £13.60 per ton of carbon dioxide they expect to produce, money they will have to claw back from us.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said ministers should not keep the money – which is going into the general pot - and use the cash specifically for projects such as improving energy efficiency of homes, investing in low-carbon technologies and helping poorer countries cope with climate change.

"This is a great opportunity to help poorer households make their homes both cheaper to heat and warmer, and create jobs through investment in new green technologies," said Lisa Harker, IPPR co-director. But, either way she cuts it, it is still a tax.

Still, at least we are getting closer to understanding how all this global warming comes about. WWF-UK, it appears, has a man called Keith Allott, who is "head of climate change". One speculates that, if he was fired, perhaps the climate change would stop. On second thoughts, fire him anyway.

As for the The Times it gaily informs us that this is only the start of the bonanza, telling us that from 2013, the EU, which has committed to cutting its carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, is expected to move towards 100 per cent auctioning of the permits.

From this we learn that it will raise tens of billions of pounds a year for member states. Er … tens of billions of pounds in tax. And next year, we are also informed, the British Government plans to auction 25 million permits - a process that would raise £335 million at yesterday's prices.

Emmissions[i-Emmissions]
It takes The Daily Telegraph to use the "t-word", even if it can't spell "emission" (see above) – what is that paper coming to?

At the end of its report, it has Per Lekander, an analyst at UBS, saying: "Someone else is paying and the Government doesn't even have to argue that taxation has increased". Then we get Andreas Arvanitakis, an analyst at Point Carbon, saying, "Auctioning is seen as a way of killing windfall profits, particularly in the electricity sector".

Emission+tax[i-Emission+tax]Ah! So, it is a windfall tax, which is exactly what we said it was in August, when there was all that kerfuffle about increased energy costs. But now those costs are poised to go down again, the government – with the aid of the EU – is pushing them back up again, with a regressive tax that hurts the lowest-paid most.

Funnily enough, even The Financial Times noticed how the self-appointed champion of the poorly paid, David Cameron, was silent during the ongoing debate on the windfall tax – although his then energy spokesman, Alan Duncan, did eventually object to it.

But, now the government has levied this tax, which will increase year-on-year, there are absolutely no prizes for correct guesses about what Mr Cameron will now do. It appears that it is not only the media suffering diarrhoeal brain loss when it comes to climate change.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 01:48 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

From councillor Tony Sharp on his blog. This is not a million miles from our view.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 00:25 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

david_cameron1[i-david_cameron1]The Tories hate Simon Heffer. More so, David Cameron loathes and detests him, as do many of the Shadow Cabinet, falling in with their master in sharing his views.

As a king of the "man-in-pub" ranters, there is a lot to dislike about Heffer but, like him or loathe him, amongst the dross he produces, he is very often able to put his finger on the pulse and come up with a right diagnosis.

No more is this true than in his op-ed today, where he writes a coruscating piece about the Tory party, under the heading: "Cameron and Osborne need to prove how, under a Tory administration, things would get better."

The analysis, inevitably, must be read with a critical eye but what particularly strikes a chord is Heffer's comment that:

There have been failings of policy, of presentation, but, above all, of connection. To have gone so wrong implies that the leadership and its advisers are inhabiting a fantasy world. What is truly alarming is that they show little sign of leaving it.

Indeed, they are in a "fantasy world" – this is the "Westminster bubble" of their own making, with walls more solid than concrete, through which nothing but the most carefully selected messages can filter. And Heffer is quite right to be alarmed that the Tories show "little sign of leaving it".

The problem – and it is a huge one – is that there is a certain kind of Tory, of which Cameron is one (but there are many more), who has such a strong conviction that they are right in everything that they do or think, that it is inconceivable to them that they can be wrong.

Confronted with people who manage temporarily to by-pass the filter, to offer opposing views, their reaction is disbelief and then concern that anyone could not agree with their views.

Their resolution to this conflict is either to ignore what they are told or, if pressed, they seek to convince their challengers that their views are wrong. The only outcomes to such confrontations can be that the heretics are convinced of the errors of their ways, or that they go away (or both). What cannot happen is that our archetypal Tories can in any way admit that they are wrong, and thus change their views.

On a day-to-day basis, this self-belief is managed by rigorously excluding any source that might offer contrary views, confining input only to sources which sustain and reinforce the received wisdom. This, one sees many times. On meeting it for the first time, I was shocked by the reaction of a very senior Tory when I referred to a particularly contentious piece of work, that was being widely discussed in my circle. Airily, he told me, "Oh, I never read that kind of stuff".

You can also see this dynamic in the range of Tory blogs and how often they link to each other. Rarely do you find any "outsider", giving living evidence of the gilded, self-referential "bubble" in which these people operate.

Interestingly Heffer's piece comes in the wake of a recent poll which has cut the Tory lead over Labour to a mere three points. It is interesting to see the reaction in the comments section of Tory Diary. Of reaction to today's Heffer piece, there is none. He is outside the pale. He is ignored.

The polls, of course, will go down, and they will go up. There is only one poll that really matters, and that is the one cast in the ballot box. But, as it stands, and as we suggested, the Tories, wrapped in their own little bubble, are in danger of losing that one.

That we have been warning thus has been ignored. It will continue to be ignored. We are not "on message". Therefore, we must be wrong.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 14:27 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

writing-pen[i-writing-pen]You know you have made a "hit" when the greenies start squeaking, by which measure Booker's column last Sunday has achieved precisely that.

Only now dropping to number two on the Telegraph website's own "most viewed" list, it has been mentioned on the Drudge Report and many other US websites, as well as sites worldwide. In all well over a hundred blogs seem to have run it, most for and a very few against.

The piece, of course, highlighted the extraordinary blunder made by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – prop. James Hansen - in compiling the temperature dataset for October, including September figures from Russia and elsewhere, thus falsely inflating the monthly figure. And, with this flaw embedded and undiscovered, GISS went on to claim that last October had been the hottest on record.

Reaction to Booker's piece on the comment's section was quite remarkable, with a huge number of replies, most of the in support of the article, but the one I enjoyed most was an anti, which stormed: "Every, and I mean every, comment on this thread made by the deniers that addresses the SCIENCE of GW is wrong … That applies also to the many worthless websites that are linked to by those in denial over AGW."

That, of course, refers primarily to the two key blogs which, more than any, have, with their expert commentators, exposed the flawed data used by GISS. The first is the invaluable Watts up with that whose current post on the issue sports no less than 270 comments.

The second is Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit. His current post picks up a mere 141 comments, but then he has done a whole series of posts on the issue, with the comments on each running to the hundreds.

link[i-link]Displaying an ironic sense of humour, McIntyre even heads a post asking, "Did Napoleon use Hansen's Temperature Data?", stating that "It's colder in Russia in October than in September, as Napoleon found out to his cost in 1812."

Flash forward almost 200 years later, McIntyre writes, to the NSA report of record warmth in October throughout Russia, with many sites experiencing similar temperatures in October as in September, and perhaps that was the sort of situation that Napoleon had hoped for - similar in actual temperatures in deg C.

Booker's piece itself was a marvellous example of the synergy that can be achieved between blogs, their commentators and the MSM. It was Watts who picked up the story in the first place and his expert readers then piled in to find out why the temperature record was so high, putting their findings on the comments section. McIntyre had also picked it up, and did a series of technical evaluations, with his readers joining in.

The now disjointed but technically comprehensive effort was then picked up by Booker, synthesised, compressed down to a mere 750 words and published in The Sunday Telegraph. From there it was picked up and spread throughout the world on more than 100 blogs, the cumulative readership now running to millions.

As for the greenies, lead naysayer is Gavin Hudson on his blog "Eco Worldly", who storms: "The power of the pen, when used irresponsibly, serves not to illuminate and progress human discourse, but to confuse and stifle it. Christopher Booker's article does a disservice to climate skeptics and climate activists alike."

Under the heading, "The Bias and Logical Fallacies of Christopher Booker's 'Freezing Heat'", Hudson purports to debunk Booker's piece, accusing him, inter alia, of resorting to ad hominem attacks of (sic) climate scientists.

But what is hugely ironic is that the piece itself is one long ad hominem attack on Booker. What gives the game away is that this author presents the case made by Booker as if it were his and his alone, an expression of his personal opinion.

Nowhere does Hudson mention either Watts or McIntyre (which means, of course, he does not link to either's site) yet the whole thrust of Booker's piece was to report the drama unfolding on these sites. They take the central place in his account and, on the online edition, there are active links to both sites.

Thus, you can see Hudson's game. His task – as with all the greenies – is to control the flow of information, close down the debate and silence, or denigrate the critics. Controlling the flow of information, incidentally, is what the MSM also does. Although scarcely a day goes by without the media running a "warmist" story and you can bet that, if the GISS figures had not been savaged by two expert bloggers and their readers, the "hottest October on record" would have spread throughout the MSM like wildfire.

But, strangely, when the great greenie guru James Hansen makes a complete Horlicks of the figures, not a word is said, apart from in the Booker column. Such is the real "power of the pen". Never is it so powerful, in the media's hands – to say nothing of the greenies - as when it is not used. It is perhaps deeply significant, therefore, that Hudson should use as his illustration for his piece (which I've nicked - top left), a pristine pen, evidently unused.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 00:53 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

Strong rumours flying around that President-Elect Obama is going to make Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State. Well, he owes the lady. After all, she agreed to step aside at the Convention even though she had won the actual primary votes. The paying of debts will be a long process, given how many people have been promised something.

There are the unions who want the abolition of secret ballots (what will the Tory Socialists say to that?) and the Federal civil servants who were promised more power and more money; there are the journalists who appointed themselves to be Obama propagandists; above all, there are the Kennedys. We shall see.

Of course, Secretary of State Clinton was predicted by our friend John O'Sullivan, Executive Editor of Radior Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I found it hard to believe him at the time and may well have to eat my words. We shall see. Our joint prediction about European reaction was accurate, I suspect.

Posted by Helen at 13:37 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

Labels: American politics

It looks like a "toy" story ... but it isn't. It is intensely political. It's got "toys" in it though, so I've put it up on Defence of the Realm, just in case the sight of them offends you.

It's funny, isn't it, how the really interesting political stories never get into the newspapers - mainly because the chatterati haven't the wits to understand what is going on, I suspect.

And that, dear reader, is politics for you!

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 01:05 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

nitromors[i-nitromors]In one of those days when there’s too much coming at you to be able to focus, I was nonetheless taken by Philip Johnston's column in The Daily Telegraph, in which he complains, "Browbeaten MPs fail to do their basic job."

He opens with an entirely correct assertion that, "It almost certainly passed you by …" telling us that the House of Commons took quite a momentous decision last week. "MPs agreed to establish a Speaker's Conference, a rarely constituted forum for considering and, if necessary, changing how Parliament conducts its business."

The last conference, it appears, was in 1977 and this will be only the sixth such conference since the beginning of the 20th century. And, writes Johnston:

It has been established amid worries that the Commons is seen as a narrow, self-serving elite that bears no relation to the population as a whole. At the conclusion of what will be a year-long inquiry, it wants to make the House more representative and relevant.

Johnston then catalogues, with some skill, the irrelevance of the measures being considered, which is all very entertaining – and irrelevant. Two absolutely vital things are missing from his dissertation.

The first is the most obvious. As we have recorded in so many posts that we could not even begin to catalogue them, the vibrancy has been drained from Parliament with its erosion of power, the real power now residing in Brussels and in its satellite, up the road from Westminster, the Whitehall machine.

Much of what Parliament does these days is irrelevant because Parliament itself is irrelevant. And until that issue is redressed, we are going nowhere. Yet, Mr Johnston, for all his skills, does not mention the EU at all.

He does, however, rehearse the idiocies of the Licensing Act 2003 - not the bit that allows 24-hour drinking, but the section that licenses entertainment, law actually passed by Parliament in one of the few remaining areas where the UK still has residual power (give it time, though, and that too will be gone), and the point is made well enough. But I could give him a better and more relevant example.

Unbeknown to many, the EU commission has put forward a proposal for decision by the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to ban consumer and professional use of dichloromethane (DCM) – known by some, including me, as methylene chloride.

Boring, you might say, but this is the key ingredient of ninety percent of all paint removers sold. Virtually all, including your useful and familiar tin of Nitromors, will simply disappear from the shelves.

Furthermore, we are told, the commission, in bringing forward this proposal, did not allow this proposal to be further discussed or voted by Member States’ representatives who have been debating the matter for six years. Despite knowing that banning ninety percent of paint removers from the market will clearly be highly disruptive, it intends to go ahead.

Actually, this will be more than extremely disruptive. Not only is the product used for paint stripping, in the professional cleaning world, it is the only agent available that can be used to clean heavily carbonised soiling from aluminium kitchen equipment and car parts, without damaging the metal. In my time, I have used gallons of the stuff and would have been totally lost without it. I could even tell you a hilarious story about using it … but I won't.

"Nitromors", however, is another symbol of Parliament's impotency. The battle to keep it will now be played out (and lost), between Whitehall and the rest of the member states, each vying for position against or for the proposal – which will be subject to qualified majority voting. Germany is very much pro-ban and it is likely that it will prevail.

Then, in the fullness of time, when the outcome has been determined and can no longer be changed, our Parliament will be informed and required to give the measure its assent. It will – as it always does - and, some time afterwards people like Philip Johnston will be complaining at the "mad bureaucracy" that has banned yet another essential product.

And therein lies another omission – Mr Johnston and his colleagues. As they indulge themselves is recording the trivia and tat, gleefully recording the political theatre of Parliament and ignoring the substance, they fail entirely to tell the population at large quite how etiolated Parliament has become.

It is not just a question, therefore, of Parliament failing to do its basic job – as Johnston observes. It is also a question of the media failing to it its basic job. But then, I guess he might have a little difficulty selling that line to his editor.

Rather like Parliament, the media is very good at dishing it out, but extraordinarily sensitive about accepting criticism. Try putting a note critical of a media story on the corresponding "comments" facility on any online newspaper and you will see exactly what I mean.

That, unfortunately, leaves us only one response to Johnston's piece – something along the lines of "physician heal thyself". The media is as much part of the problem as is Parliament.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 16:22 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

... we shall have to start writing about freedom of speech being destroyed in the land of the First Amendment. Think how shocking that would be. Oh yes, I wonder what those Tory Socialist supporters of the new President-Elect will say. Will they still swoon and chant hope and change?

An analysis on American Thinker of how conservative talk radio, paid for privately by businesses, can be silenced as it is likely to criticize the new order without the use of the unpopular "Fairness Doctrine". If, instead, you use the word localism, you will get a lot of people nodding their heads. Who is against localism? By the time people realized they have been bamboozled, it will be too late.

Posted by Helen at 15:40 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

Labels: American politics

"New safety fears over Army vehicles after soldier killed" headlines The Daily Telegraph (online). "A British army soldier killed in southern Afghanistan is the 22nd to be killed while inside one of the Army's Warrior vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq, raising fears insurgents have found an effective way of attacking the armoured machines."

Now where did that come from? Actually, that's not quite correct - 22 soldiers have been killed in Warrior-related attacks, but not all of them were inside the vehicles at the time.

However, what I hadn't fully realised, when I wrote yesterday's piece was that the British Army had developed a new, highly secret piece of equipment. It's called a magic wand. They take Warriors out of Iraq, where they have been torn to shreds by bombs, and fly them into Afghanistan. There, there are met by an officer standing on the ramp who waves the MoD-issue magic wand over them and says the magic word, "abacadabra". Then, hey! They're bomb proof!

Isn't modern technology wonderful!

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 14:42 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

Booker+cold+heat[i-Booker+cold+heat]
I had lots of plans for yesterday's posts, not least a full review of Booker's column, on the "surreal scientific blunder" made by Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and our friend Hansen (pictured above).

However, I was caught out by the news from Afghanistan of another soldier killed by a bomb. My intentions to do a brief piece changed when I found out what vehicle was being used or, to be more precise – misused. I decided to do a little digging, which became a lot of digging, ending up in my writing a far more detailed story than originally intended, which is posted on Defence of the Realm.

This piece will be entirely ignored by the chatterati who have so many more important things to discuss and the points made will be largely missed by the media, most of which find it impossible to understand the finer points of military issues, and therefor so often completely miss the point of an emerging story.

Nonetheless, as Booker very kindly (it was his idea) points out in his column, it is really quite interesting how many of the things reported on DOTR (and EU Referendum) later appear on the front (and other) pages of the MSM sometimes with acknowledgements but most times not. We can take a quiet pride in that and it would not surprise me if some of the story just written also found its way into the MSM.

The claim (I can't recall when or who) by some clapped-out dead-tree journalist that blogs are "derivative" quietly dies when you look at the material this (and a few other) blogs provide. The trouble is, though, not being "derivative" sometimes takes a lot more work than simple "drive-by blogging", as today has shown.

So, we'll pick up the threads later today and, mixing metaphors outrageously, crank the treadmill into gear.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 02:00 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

FISH+-+006s[i-FISH+-+006s]So low down on the news agenda is it that, even though The Sunday Telegraph offers a short, five paragraph piece on it in the print edition, even this newspaper does not seem concerned enough to post the story online. It will, therefore, be missed by commentators who surf the net for their news.

The story itself is headed, "Tories pledge to end fish dumping" – the obscene practice of "discards" which is a central feature of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, about which Christopher Booker has written so much and which had kept this blog continually exercised, most recently here.

So, if the Tories are pledging to end this obscenity, this must surely be good news, except for the fact that it should already be Tory policy. That it became so, briefly, was happily announced by Booker in his column on 8 January 2005. That was the day before Owen Paterson, then shadow fisheries minister, launched his consultation paper on fisheries, which included the unilateral repatriation of the CFP, an event which was also recorded by this blog.

This policy had in fact been adopted by Michael Howard, the former Tory leader who, after frenetic behind-the-scenes negotiations, affirmed it on 10 June 2004, after a clear statement at the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Dundee on 14 June 2004, again recorded by this blog.

However, with the accession of David Cameron to the leadership of the Tory Party, after its earlier defeat in the general election, the policy was quietly ditched, without even a formal statement to that effect.

So, here we are, more than three years later and, once again, it looks as if the policy is back. But, as we all know to our cost, appearances can be deceptive. What we learn is that Bill Wiggin, now the shadow fisheries minister, has apparently discussed new proposals with Joe Borg, the EU fishing commissioner. From these discussions, what David Cameron's new "conservative" party now has in mind is – according to The Sunday Telegraph - as follows:

The party is seeking EU support for a pilot scheme that would require British fishermen to land and report all fish caught and killed in the catching process.

From a robust, principled stand, where the Tories would reassert control over a valuable national asset, and re-introduce a proper and effective management system, David Cameron now proposes that his fisheries minister in a new Tory government would do what Tory ministers have always done since the very first days when we joined the then Common Market.

He will go cap-in-hand to Brussels and there he will say "pretty please" to our real masters, and ask if they would, very kindly, allow us to stop doing something which, had we been a sovereign nation, we would never have actually done in the first place.

That is what it has come to. That is what we always suspected might happen and that gives us the revealing clue as to Mr Cameron's real policy towards the European Union … more of the same, as it has always been. What we can't say, however, is that we have been betrayed. We never expected any different from Mr Cameron.

The question is, on this basis, are we expected to vote for the Conservative Party? And, if so, how are they different from Labour?

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 15:19 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

un-building-geneva[i-un-building-geneva]A report in The Sunday Times today tells us that the United Nations has commissioned a £12m decorative ceiling for its building in Geneva (pictured).

The work, at the headquarters of the UN Human Rights Council, is to be unveiled this week by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain and Jose Luis Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister.

It was produced by Miquel Barcelo, 51, one of the world's most highly paid abstract artists, who was hire to redesign a 14,000 sq ft dome. Barcelo has said his design aims to create a "grotto", with stalactites reflecting "infinity and the multiplicity of view-points". He has built a honeycomb of aluminium from which to hang resin stalactites up to 3ft long. They are coloured with paint containing pigments from all over the world.

Needless to say, the expenditure has prompted furious protests from campaigners who believe it is an extravagant misuse of development funds. They are right, of course, but it will not make a blind bit of difference. As in all things, these tranzies are totally out of control and can happily stick two fingers up to outdated concepts such as accountability, responsibility, good governance …

Well done the Sunday Times for reporting it. But what do we do now?

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 01:23 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

According to Associated Press, via IHT, Kosovo police say attackers threw an explosive device at the European Union's headquarters in Kosovo amid rising tensions over the bloc's plan for a police mission to the country.

Police say nobody was hurt in the attack at 5:30 pm (16:30 GMT) Friday in the capital Pristina that slightly damaged the EU office.

What does one say?

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 18:27 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

TORY+children[i-TORY+children]
To the disgust of some of the commentators on the Tory Diary blog – but applauded by others – Robert Winnett sketches out the timeline on "How the Conservatives lose the next election".

Separately, the lead editorial declares, "The Tories should be as angry as the rest of us", pointing out in lucid terms quite why that should be. It then remarks that "the place where there is a dearth of the splenetic anger felt by the rest of us is on the front bench of the Conservative Party."

The focus here, rightly and necessarily, is on the dire financial situation and the paper has put its finger on the pulse and correctly diagnosed the disease. Behind the posturing and preening of the Tory front bench, there is manifestly lacking that outrage at the appalling mismanagement of the current government, which means that the Tory leaders fail entirely to transmit to the nation sense of conviction or seriousness.

And, while the focus of The Telegraph is on economic issues, the greater problem is that the rot spreads far wider. In September, for instance, just before the Conservative Party conference and after a series of carefully crafted posts not least this one, we called for a clear statement of policy on energy - an absolutely vital need if we are to stop the lights going out.

Of course, we did not get that statement – nor even a proper speech on energy – at the conference. Instead, as we later discover, we get the Friends of the Earth.

As with energy, so it is with defence, we get the same lack of coherence. Instead of an energentic and principled attack on the government, we see the Tory opposition staring at an open goal and then sauntering off to the pavilion for a cup of tea, leaving the balls unattended.

In this context, please spare the time to have a look at this piece. You may have passed it by, thinking it was a "toy" post, but it isn't. It tells the horrifying and desperately sad tale of Sergeant Hickey, which cannot help but move you. Tears do not come easily to me but, after a long interview last night with Sgt Hickey's mother, Pauline (on which this account - heavily revised from the original - is partially based), I struggled with this one and still do.

Of course, it goes without saying that one harbours a deep, unremitting anger at the government for sending gallant soldiers like Sgt Hickey into the battlefield (and that it was) so unprepared that their horrible deaths were all but inevitable. But, if you can spare a little bit more time to read this, you will see that the failures and dereliction were not entirely on the side of the government. We convey in this piece a stark illustration of how the opposition too failed to do its job.

As a conclusion to that piece, I wrote:

That is but one small example of where the Conservatives so consistently fail as an opposition – to their own disadvantage. They could have been trumpeting a "success". Instead, they have nothing to say. Until they re-learn the art of opposition, there can be little confidence that they are fit for the greater and more demanding task of government.

At the time this was written, I had forgotten that I had written a piece in December 2006 with exactly the same title – for exactly the same reason.

I do not accept – as some argue on the Tory front bench - that oppositions are powerless, or that they cannot control or dictate the political agenda. Careful, research-driven, forensic opposition always yields results – that is how Thatcher won her first election. But this is something the Conservatives, under the tutelage of David Cameron, have forgotten how to do.

Thus, I agree with the thrust of The Telegraph pieces this morning. And, in using again the photograph which we used in October, we make the same point.

As long as this is the prevailing image of the Tory front bench, then the paper has it right. The Tories are on their way to a defeat at the next election. That will be a catastrophe for them but, as it stands, a Tory victory would be an even bigger catastrophe for the country than a continued Labour administration.

And that, dear reader, the tragedy of our times. All that is on offer from our political classes is a choice of catastrophes.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 12:52 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

FISH+-+rusty+boat[i-FISH+-+rusty+boat]We've written about it before, most recently in June last year and then again in the January of the same year.

This is engrenage - not talked about much in polite company and if you mention it to the average politician of journalist, you will be greeted with a blank stare. Yet, in our June post, we explained that this mechanism, loosely translated as gearing is one of the major drivers of political integration within the European Union.

We even went so far as to explain the mechanism, even in the certain knowledge that many of those who should know will steer clear of this blog, like it was the plague, and this remain in their desired state of blissful ignorance. For the rest, those of us who have ambitions to drive the tumbrels or cheer their passing, we wrote thus:

First of all, it prevents member states implementing their own controls in a vital policy area (such as immigration), and then starts to regulate in these areas itself. The regulation is invariably incomplete and functions poorly, requiring more legislation. It is then not long before there are demands for additional laws, whence the EU commission happily obliges with proposals – grandly declaring that the member states are calling for "more Europe".

So it is that we see another example of the mechanism, this one relating to what qualifies – despite intense competition – as one of the most disastrous policy yet to be devised by the EU, the Common Fisheries Policy.

Through this dire, bureaucratic construct, the EU has managed to devastate the fishing grounds of the member states and, in particular, the formerly teeming waters of the Continental shelf around the UK, variously reckoned to have held some 80 percent of the commercial fishing stocks in the waters that come within the boundaries of the EU member states.

But, all-encompassing though it might be – there is one huge gap in the policy. It leaves the enforcement of the EU fisheries laws to the member states. And having turned commercial fishing virtually a criminal activity, having demonised fishermen and driven most of them into penury or alternative livelihood, the EU commission is complaining that those foolhardy or desperate enough to remain in the industry are not being fined enough by their member state courts when they fall foul of EU rules, and that there is too much variation in fines for similar offences in the different member state courts.

Thus, in an absolutely classic example of engrenage the commission is asking member states to approve "dramatically tougher enforcement of fishing rules". There is no word, of course, of the EU itself having created a conservation disaster and an entirely unworkable, which creates the very "criminals" to whom the "tougher enforcement" should apply.

Instead, it invokes visions of "motherhood and apple pie", pleading that this move is necessary to "stop years of illegal catches that have devastated species such as cod and tuna."

With such noble ambitions declared – quietly sliding over the real agenda, the pursuit of political integration – the commission thus proposes that EU officials would receive new powers to pursue fishermen in their home countries for offences such as fishing in protected spawning areas or out of season for threatened species. Inefficient and costly checks at sea would be replaced by reinforced investigations at port.

Needless to say the fishermen must be punished severely under this new regime, with fines rising to as much as €300,000 for serious breaches of (EU) fishing rules - 100 times greater than current fines in some cases. Repeat offenders could lose their permits.

To bolster his case, EU fisheries commissioner Joe Borg declares that low fines and weak enforcement by some member states "makes a mockery" of the EU's "tough catch quotas," calling in aid one of its favoured captive NGOs, the WWF, to support it.

But, while the WWF exudes horror at the supposed depredation of the evil fishermen – thereby seeking to enlist the approval of all "right-minded people", who have been indoctrinated with decades of "anti-fishermen" propaganda – the EU gets a new brick in the growing edifice of its common judicial system, with a uniform application of fines across the EU, monitored and controlled, of course, by the EU commission.

We have already seen a similar attempt with EU environmental laws, this one driven through the ECJ, but this is the first overt attempt to standardise penalties through the direct application of a new EU law.

If successful, this will set a stronger precedent for a system of common penalties throughout the EU. In the fullness of time, possibly after the passage of many years, the commission will then look to encroachment into another policy area. And so, slowly, steadily and inexorably, the process of engrenage does its deadly work, so stealthily and cleverly that hardly anyone notices – much less protests.

Jean Monnet – deviser of the mechanism – certainly knew what he was doing.

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 00:46 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

click here to go to the blog[i-click here to go to the blog] Yesterday, in a terse but informative announcement, the US armoured vehicle manufacturer, Force Protection Inc, told the world (or that small bit of it that was interested) that it had received from the United States Army "under contract W56HZV-08-C-0028" an additional order worth $15.5 million. This was for the delivery of 16 of its Buffalo A2 route-clearance vehicles - for delivery no later than the end of June 2009.

But the really interesting news followed. "In addition," Force Protection said, it had received "a Foreign Military Sales order of 14 Buffalo vehicles to be delivered to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence." This contract, although two less than the US order, was "not to exceed $18.6 million" and represented "the first orders for the Buffalo vehicle for the United Kingdom." Work, including vehicle deliveries and "sustainment" is to be completed by October 2009.

Read more on Defence of the Realm.

Posted by Richard at 18:00 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

Post_office_rural[i-Post_office_rural]The elephant in the room is alive and kicking today in the print media reports of the government's unexpected U-turn on post offices.

As we reported in detail on 13 May 2008, a wave of closures has been threatened by the EU requirement to put out to tender under the Procurement Directives a contract to handle pension and benefit payments.

This was the "Post Office Card Account 2 (Poca2)" contract – which deals with pension and benefits payments and is due to expire in 2010. The 24 million or so transactions involved are valued at £1 billion between 2003 and 2010 and provide a key element of post offices' income.

The problem was – until the U-turn - that the contract for 2010 onwards had been put up for tender. It had attracted two rival bidders. If the Post Office had lost the contract, many small branches would go out of business, as the transactions provide about 12 percent of sub-postmasters' earnings, as well as attracting customers who spend on other services and products.

Now, as The Times reports, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has told the House of Commons that the Post Office would retain the business under a new contract running for five years from 2010, with the possibility of an extension.

What is utterly bizarre is that, unlike some of the broadcast media, The Times political editor, Philip Webster, does not mention the EU at all, much less the Procurement Directives.

The Daily Telegraph, via Christopher Hope, "Whitehall Editor" is just as bad, although he does mention that the loss of the contract could also have jeopardised a £150million a year European Union contract. This, he writes, could have led to thousands more branch closures as a "social" subsidy was at risk, because the benefits contract was one of the criteria for the grant.

A quick scan indicates that most of the other print media outlets have missed the EU dimension, yet this is the really interesting development. Hitherto, the government has insisted that, to comply with EU law, it must go through the tendering process – as indeed it has done with other services, following which contracts have gone elsewhere triggering much of the current wave of closures.

Now, on the face of it, it seems either the government was wrong, in that it did not need to put these contracts out to tender, or that it is now acting in defiance of EU law.

What seems to have happened, though, is that lawyers have discovered an ingenious loophole in the EU law, by which post office services can be exempted from the tender process.

In his announcement, Purnell referred to the "award a new contract for the continuation of the Post Office card account directly to Post Office Ltd, within the terms of the relevant EC regulations." He was then asked by his Tory counterpart Alan Duncan whether the decision required EU clearance. The secretary of state answered, "We do not believe that it does, and we believe that it complies with EU law. The decision has been properly and legally taken."

Jenny Willott, the Lib-Dem MP for Cardiff Central, came back, noting that the secretary of state had decided to award a contract for the continuation of the POCA within the terms of the relevant EC regulations. She asked: "If he can do that now, why could he not have done it before or why did he choose not to do so?" Purnell, without a blush, answered:

The Post Office provides a service that is not only a banking service, but a social service, and that becomes even more important when people are worried about financial circumstances. In the light of that, we commissioned legal advice, which has said that this is the right way for us to proceed.

There is, of course, the possibility that the EU commission might disagree with the government's miraculous new legal advice, but Purnell could be taking a calculated risk. He will know, if the commission does argue the toss, he can stall them for a while and, if it decides to act, it takes about two years to crank into gear and start the formal infringement proceedings.

By that time, it will either be David Cameron's problem or, with Labour back in office, it will have a whole new term in front of it and can cross the necessary bridges when it comes to them.

Whatever the truth of this bizarre tale, the assembled hacks seem collectively to have decided that they will not soil their pretty little brains by writing about a petty little detail like EU law. More probably, they suffer from that strange disease which renders the EU entirely invisible to them. Can there be any other explanation?

COMMENT THREAD

Posted by Richard at 02:24 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]

The trouble with running the two blogs, EU Ref and Defence of the Realm is that each one needs virtually full time attention. And when one particular issue takes on a special prominence on one blog, content on the other unavoidably gets neglected.

With the news coming in today of a further two soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Royal Marines both, driving in a Jackal, bringing the total casualties to 300 in Iraq and Afghanistan, defence unfortunately has had to take most of my time today. Under the circumstances, I would rather it had not.

Anyhow, a longish post over at Defence of the Realm.

Posted by Richard at 20:41 Printable Version   Print icon18_edit_allbkg[i-icon18_edit_allbkg]