EU Referendum

Showing posts with label africa. Show all posts

Legare[i-Legare]
We hear so much about the good intentions of the trans-national EU and how much it helps Africa – like when it steals its fish in highly dubious deals on fishing rights. What African littoral states need though, more than anything, is practical help in policing their own waters, better to protect their fish from predatory fishing fleets and to support artisan fishermen.

In small measure, that help is there – not enough, but it is something. But it is not the EU that steps up to the plate ... it could not and, even if it could, it would not. No, the help comes from another nation state, the United States.

Pictured is the Yu Feng, a Taiwanese-flagged fishing vessel suspected of illegal fishing activity, moves through the water off the coast of Freetown, Sierra Leone, on 17 August, before being boarded by US Coast Guardsmen from USCGC Legare (WMEC 912) and representatives of the Sierra Leone armed forces maritime wing, Fisheries Ministry and Office of National Security.

Legare is on a three-month deployment as part of Africa Partnership Station, an international initiative developed by US Naval Forces Europe and Africa to work with U.S. and international partners to improve maritime safety and security in Africa. (DoD photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Shawn Eggert, US Coast Guard/Released.)

COMMENT THREAD

Stoddart+01[i-Stoddart+01]... the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

We all know that famous phrase if not from personal experience then from countless TV shows. There is, however, one group of people who seems unaware of it and that is Her Majesty’s Ministers and their advisers.

On Thursday there was a reply to a Written Question put down by Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The question was interesting in that it implied (oh heck, said quite clearly) that a previous reply had been economical with the truth, a phrase that Ministers and their advisers know very well, indeed.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 4 June (WA 107), why he did not mention that European Union regulations have direct effect in the United Kingdom; and whether, in the light of the United Kingdom's results in the European Parliamentary elections, they will reconsider their decision not to undertake research into the proportion of United Kingdom legislation originating in the European Union.

Right, let's go back to that original question and the answer to it by Lord Malloch-Brown, formerly best friend of George Soros as well as bag-carrier to ex-SecGen Kofi Annan.

First the question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 18 May (WA 253), (a) what would be the likely cost of research into the proportion of United Kingdom legislation originating in the European Union; and (b) what assessment they have made of the figure of 75 per cent as the proportion quoted by some political parties and organisations and by The Independent on 19 May (page 27).

And the answer?

The Government have not assessed the likely cost of research into this issue. The Government believe that any expenditure would be disproportionate given the limited purpose such figures would serve.

The Government do not believe that the figure of 75 percent is accurate. A House of Commons Library analysis of the effects of EU legislation on British law between 1998 and 2005 gave a figure of just 9.1 per cent.

Interesting. So finding out and letting the electorate know what proportion of the legislation comes from the EU and cannot be thrown out (if, indeed, it is read) by the elected members of the House of Commons would serve a limited purpose, according to HMG. Is that because who legislates and whether that is controlled by the electorate are topics that are of no importance in a democracy?

Now we can understand why Lord Stoddart has decided to ask the most recent question. It is clear that the House of Common Library analysis dealt only with Directives that do require parliamentary legislation though this could be secondary, put through by Statutory Instruments. What of those Regulations that are directly applicable. Well, here is Lord Brett's reply on behalf of HMG:

The Answer given by my noble friend the Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, Lord Malloch-Brown, did not mention EC regulations as the Question did not ask about the legal effect of specific Community instruments. It has always been clear that EC regulations are directly applicable in the UK. The Government reaffirm the Answer to the previous Question.

The question asked about the proportion of legislation that comes from the EU. That must include, surely, legislation that is directly applicable and of which Parliament knows nothing. To whom exactly has it "always been clear that EC regulations are directly applicable in the UK"? HMG, its Ministers, their advisers and members of Parliament with very few exceptions in the House of Lords tend not to mention this fact. Perhaps, they do not always know themselves?

COMMENT THREAD

India[i-India]Earlier this month we were reporting on the coming grain harvest, observing that while overall production was down, there was at least a bright spot with wheat.

That happy situation arose, in part, because of a bigger than expected yield from India which for the past two years has been prohibiting wheat exports to stave of shortages at home.

However, only a few later the prospects are no longer looking so rosy. The Indian Met Office is predicting that the 2009 monsoon may fail, delivering only 93 percent of the normal 19 inches of rain which falls during the season.

More worryingly, the grain bank of the country - north-west India, including Punjab and Haryana – is predicted to suffer the most, getting only 81 percent of the long-term average for the region. Add a possible error of eight percent and the rainfall for north-west India could be as low as 73 percent of normal, leading to drought conditions.

Most Indian farmers depend on the monsoon as only 40 percent of farmland is irrigated. They tend, therefore, to plant summer-sown crops such as wheat, rice, soybeans and sugarcane in the monsoon months of June and July.

Demonstrating how slender a thread on which we all rely, this current forecast is a significant "correction" from the mid-April statement when "near normal" rainfall was expected. At least this is an improvement on 2004 though, when drought conditions were last experienced. Then the Met Office missed the signals early enough to put out a warning.

Currently, up to yesterday, the country had received only 53 percent of normal rainfall, with central India getting only 25 percent. The government is shying away from declaring an emergency but the situation is undoubtedly of concern.

The Times of India notes that nearly 70 per cent of Indians depend on agriculture, which represents around 17 percent of India's GDP. It has averaged nearly 4 percent growth over five years. The sector was expected to buoy India's overall growth, hit by the global crisis so a fall in farm production could not happen at a worse time.

With food prices are already high, they could hit the roof if the rains do not come, while food security could become an even more pressing issue.

And then, just to add to the well of human happiness, scientists in Canada and around the world are racing to find a way to stop a destructive fungus that threatens to wipe out 80 percent of the world's wheat crop.

Officials say that the airborne fungus, known as Ug99, has so far proved unstoppable, making its way out of eastern Africa and into the Middle East and Central Asia. It is now threatening areas that account for more than one-third of the world's wheat production and scientists in North America say it's only a matter of time before the pest hits the breadbasket regions of North America, Russia and China.

Global warming, under the circumstances, is the least of our problems.

COMMENT THREAD

Booker+kinnock[i-Booker+kinnock]More than a few eyebrows were raised when, after the sudden departure of Caroline Flint, Glenys Kinnock was appointed Europe minister.

Open Europe was then quick to report that, for their 10 years on the EU gravy train, she and her husband were rewarded with more than £10 million in salaries, expenses and pension rights.

But, writes Christopher Booker, little attention has been paid to what Baroness Kinnock was actually doing for our money during her 10 years as an MEP. From his account of some of her activities as an MEP, there emerges some detail of quite how vile a creature this woman really is.

In various roles, Booker writes, she was much occupied with Africa, and thus became involved in two lengthy and very nasty sagas, which were scarcely reported in the British media.

The first was the tragic story of how, since 1996, the Botswanan government has used every means, including shooting and torture, to force the few hundred remaining bushmen off the Kalahari Central Game Reserve (which was constitutionally guaranteed them in perpetuity when Botswana won independence from Britain in 1966). Claiming that the bushmen needed access to modern educational and health facilities, the government herded them into a hellish settlement at New Xade, dubbed by the bushmen "the place of death".

In 2002, Mrs Kinnock made a regal visit to New Xade as "EU spokesman" though to local ears it seemed she simply retailed the propaganda of the Botswanan officials accompanying her. When the bushmen's dignified leader, Roy Sesana, rose to give the other side of the story, the microphone was snatched off him. He said later: "She wasted money coming from London. I am crying when she says these things. She should pay the money back."

The other horrible story concerns the catastrophe which befell a large rural community outside Nairobi, when in 1989 an Italian company embarked on an EU-funded motorway scheme. Carving right through the settlement was bad enough, but a barrier in the middle of the highway caused dozens of deaths, as villagers tried to jump over it to reach schools, shops, friends and relatives. But much worse was the appalling damage done by the blasting and crushing of a million tons of rock for road building materials, creating a 97ft-deep crater right in the middle of Rungiri village.

Homes and schools were damaged by flying rocks. I spoke last week with Francis Gautugata, a Kikuyu elder, and his niece Rosemary Wambui, recalling how the whole area was carpeted for five years in dense, choking dust, killing animals and crops and leaving some 2,000 villagers with serious health damage. Blasting destroyed the area water table and the quarry filled with water, in which, to date, more than 40 villagers have drowned, many falling from steep rocks while trying to wash their clothes in the only filthy water left to them.

When, with the aid of Ann Usher, a Nairobi-based British nurse, the villagers began to plead for help, Glenys Kinnock, as a new MEP in 1994, expressed concern at what had happened and wrote: "I will pursue it". In 1995, a letter to the British government from a senior Brussels official claimed there had been only "minor damage" to a few houses. All who suffered had been "duly compensated"; the villagers had been provided with drinking water; the quarry was now safely fenced off; and a dead boy, Mr Gautugata's nephew, only drowned through "lack of swimming practice".

This was all so blatantly untrue that it prompted a storming response from six MEPs, including Mrs Kinnock. They pointed out that the project had clearly been "fundamentally flawed", and that, under the Treaty of Rome, the EU was liable for damage caused by "its servants". It must "accept responsibility" for a "series of failings" which had led to "human misery" and "material harm".

Help was pledged by the head of the EU delegation to Kenya, but the promised aid never arrived. In 2002, after I reported this story, the case was taken up by another Labour MEP, Philip Whitehead. Brussels offered to provide two boreholes, which were finally installed in 2006. When Mrs Usher wrote again to Mrs Kinnock, setting out the story in harrowing detail – health problems were worse, villagers were still drowning and being killed on the road – the new head of the local EU delegation, Eric van der Linden, drafted an extraordinary reply.

The EU had done all it could to help, he said, implying (in the face of a mass of medical evidence) that most of the compensation claims were bogus. He ended: "There is nothing more to be done on this matter". Mrs Kinnock sent on this chillingly contemptuous letter to Mrs Usher and the Kikuyu community, noting: "I hope this response is helpful." In May, this year Mrs Usher wrote yet again to Mrs Kinnock but received no reply.

Now that Baroness Kinnock is our Europe minister, Booker suggests, the least she can do is ensure that justice is very belatedly done to those thousands of Africans whose health and livelihood has been destroyed by this disaster which, 13 years ago, Lady Kinnock readily acknowledged the EU had a responsibility, under the Treaty, to make good.

COMMENT THREAD

Climate+change[i-Climate+change]With Watts up with that exulting in the news of recent snowfalls in North Dakota (the first June falls in sixty years), a Daily Telegraph leader yesterday took the Met Office to task for issuing a weather forecast for 2080. How preposterous it is, the leader stormed, to issue a weather forecast for 71 years hence when the Met Office cannot guarantee getting it right 71 hours from now.

This was precisely the issue which Booker raised last week, noting also the downturn in temperatures which undoubtedly are giving rise to the North Dakota snows.

Yet it is not only this locale which is experiencing unusually cold weather. The delightfully named Carole Cloudwalker informs us of "2-4 inches of snow fall in Cody", in (almost) next door Wyoming. Further north, across the border in Alberta and Saskatchewan this weekend there were reports of six inches of snow on the ground while it was still snowing heavily, with an expectation of eight to ten inches.

In South Africa, unusual snow was also reported, with over an inch of snow in the Eastern Free State (pictured – note the caption), making driving conditions hazardous, with temperatures forecast to plummet.

Australia is experiencing good snow conditions for the opening of its ski season. It is also reported that skiing is well underway with resorts in New Zealand starting early. There is snow in Norway and a fresh fall in Austria - and some in India too. Even in Saudi Arabia there was snow, although this has now melted.

And, on the opposite side of the planet from Australia, last week we saw two inches of snow in the Cairngorms after temperatures on the mountain plunged to 0°C. Hail and snow was expected with winds of up to 30mph and temperatures at 3000ft were not expected to rise above 3°C.

All of this is jolly good fun with which to bait the warmists, but there is also a deadly serious side. Just one report from the Mississippi basin tells us that weather related problems have curtailed spring time planting for corn. Growers have reduced yield per acre prospects for the 2009 crop and projected end stocks to use for 2009/10 corn working toward a record low level dating back to 1999.

We see the same effect further north, where cool weather has pushed growth of Western Canada's wheat and barley crop at least 10 days behind schedule. Late-spring frost has hit and continues to strike the Prairie canola (rapeseed). One pocket of western Manitoba dipped to -4°C and some farmers are considering reseeding.

Similar weather effects are being reported in Brazil, which is considering cutting this year's corn output forecast for a third consecutive time as a frost in central southern states damaged crops. A drop of as much as nine million tons against last year is being expected.

What is extremely disturbing is that we are seeing the beginnings of a trend and, in fact, we were reporting similar woes this time last year. At the time, the message was don't panic … yet.

Despite this the global warming industry ploughs on regardless, continuing its ludicrous propaganda, heedless of the political implications of a prolonged cooling cycle.

And if a global shortage of food is a distinct possibility, the really disturbing thing is that the political classes – including our own – are so fixated with their global warming myth that there is no recognition of or planning for the travails that may well come.

That, above all, may well be the greatest political betrayal of them all, when the world starves because our fatuous politicians cannot even being to deal with reality and remain firmly embedded in their own fool's paradise.

COMMENT THREAD

Another twist is being added to the dreary saga of the European elections that are coming in June (and dreary it is despite the apparently inexhaustible supply of people with more money than sense who fund ever more parties for the event).

EUObserver reported yesterday that

The Pan-African Parliament is in talks with the EU on sending monitors to the European elections in June, in a project that could see Zimbabwean politicians oversee voting in the UK.

The South Africa-based institution, which is the parliamentary wing of the African Union, agreed details of a monitoring mission with European Parliament officials last week.

Ten members of the African Parliament (MAPs) would first see how the UK conducts its election on 4 June. The delegation would then inspect the central vote-counting office in Wiesbaden, Germany. The MAPs would watch the final result with MEPs in Brussels on 7 June.

An interesting and potentially highly entertaining idea. At least no-one can accuse the African Union of supplanting existing parliamentary democracies (with the exception of South Africa itself and one or two other countries, like Ghana).

There is, we are told a double aim:

The main goal of the project is to learn lessons ahead of a potential pan-African election some time in the future. But the mission would also produce a final report on EU democratic standards.

Excellent. Can't wait for that report from Zimbabwean or Nigerian or Sudanese politicians.

Just one question: who is paying for all this? (As if I didn't know.)

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]Britain should continue to give development assistance to China despite the phenomenal growth in prosperity which has seen the Far Eastern giant overtake the UK and Germany to become the world's third largest economy.

So says the Commons International Development Committee, which states that, despite increasing wealth in some parts of China, around 16 percent of the country's 1.3 billion people - equivalent to one-third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa - still live in poverty.

We should thus continue to offer, through the Department for International Development, between £5 million and £10 million a year until 2015 in a "development partnership" to support projects to provide healthcare, education, sanitation and clean water.

BARKING[i-BARKING]To give them their due, the Tories oppose the idea. One never ceases to marvel though at the stupidity of some of our MPs. Do they not have the first idea what is happening in the real world?

And have they no memory? We have seen recently a "mere" £50 million in extra aid given to Afghanistan, for much needed projects which are directly in our strategic interests yet, over the same period, our MPs want to give £60 million to China?

These people are barking mad.

COMMENT THREAD

Bernard+Kouchner[i-Bernard+Kouchner]It's a good job I read David Pryce-Jones's excellent blog; otherwise I might have missed this story. Bernard Kouchner, the saintly founder of Médecins sans Frontières, the French Foreign Minister and one, whom France Soir has described (perhaps ironically) as "le chevalier blanc" is fighting for his political life.

This blog, incidentally, welcomed M Kouchner's appointment as Foreign Minister, though since that he has shown himself to be not that different from other French or European foreign ministers though, he may not be quite as embarrassing as our own Foreign Secretary. Few people are.

Anwway, back to M Kouchner. The problem has to do with a book by a left-wing journalist, Pierre Péan, entitled Le Monde selon K ( The World according to K) in which the highly regarded activist and politician is accused of using his position for his own financial gain.

Pean depicts Dr Kouchner, a former UN administrator for Kosovo, as a hypocrite for earning large sums of money as a consultant to governments in Congo-Brazzaville, Gabon and other regimes while grooming his image as a human rights campaigner. It does not claim that the doctor, who has long ranked in polls as the most popular French politician, was earning outside money while in government.

The book gives details of two companies owned by associates of Dr Kouchner, which billed Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville E4.6million ($9million) for reports he wrote on their health insurance systems. Dr Kouchner was working as a consultant at the time, between 2002 and 2007, but Pean claims he recovered unpaid debts from Gabon after May 2007.

"I never signed a contract with an African state," Dr Kouchner said. "I was a consultant for a French firm. In three years of work I earned an average of E6000 per month after tax."

The allegations carry weight because Pean, 70, is one of the most prolific and successful French investigators of political scandal. The best seller of his two dozen books is Une Jeunesse Francaise (A French Youth), which in 1994 revealed that the late president Francois Mitterrand was decorated by the wartime collaborationist government of Marshal Philippe Petain. Mitterrand co-operated with Pean, who treated him sympathetically.

Then again, they may not carry as much weight as all that. According to the latest polls, 71 per cent of those asked said that their opinion of M Kouchner remains unchanged.

Beyond maintaining that the book does not tell the truth, M Kouchner is also accusing Pierre Péan of a personal and, specifically, anti-Semitic smear campaign. This could turn into something very nasty, given recent stories of growing anti-Semitism in France.

The suggestions that this book is a way for the left and the Socialist Party to settle scores with M Kouchner who, they feel, betrayed them in his support for the war in Iraq and in agreeing to serve under President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister François Fillon are being voiced by many.

A prominent Paris lawyer retained by Kouchner, Georges Kiejman, said on RTL radio that he would probably bring a libel suit against Péan on Kouchner's behalf. At the same time, Kiejman urged a Paris prosecutor to bring libel charges, which in France can be a criminal prosecution, because Kouchner had been attacked during service as a minister.

"One takes the most popular person and one attacks him, and one hopes the popularity of the person one attacks of course will multiply the number of copies sold," Kiejman said.

Péan, joining the battle on France-Info radio, said he never accused Kouchner of violating the law, but rather of making lucrative deals with unsavory African governments not in keeping with his image as a human rights crusader.

"I do not speak of illegality," Péan said. "I worked from the perspective of ethics and republican morality." Kouchner's actions, he added, created "a distortion between what he does in general and the image French people have of him."

As for the charge of anti-Semitism, The Washington Post does not mention it but it is there in Charles Bremner's piece in The Timesrefers to the problem in the book:

Dr Kouchner also attacked charges in the book that carry overtones ofanti-Semitism. Mr Péan mocks Dr Kouchner's pride in his Jewish origins. He writes in vitriolic terms that Dr Kouchner subscribes to "an Anglo-Saxon cosmopolitanism" that detests the values of the French Republic and its
independent foreign policy.

Stalin's second purge in the early fifties was seriously anti-Semitic; the expression used was "rootless cosmpolitans". I can't help thinking the old monster lost a trick by not referring to Anglo-Saxon cosmopolitanism.

Having recently sacked his Minister of Justice because of "of the focus on her designer wardrobe and complicated love life", President Sarkozy is unlikely to be happy about another growing scandal, whatever the rights and wrongs of it might be.

In the meantime, M Kouchner is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

COMMENT THREAD

Uganda+farmers[i-Uganda+farmers]Amid the gathering economic crisis, with the continuing sense that no one seems really to understand what is going on – and no one is in control, this might seem small beer. But it isn't. It tells of EU action which is going to add immeasurably to the sum of human misery, from which none of us will be insulated.

The subject is one we have visited before, most notably here - the EU's new pesticide directive. This particular piece exactly echoes our fears when it declares: "EU's false insecticide fears pose real threat to Africa".

The EU, it says, "banned scores of pesticides this month under the pretence of protecting human health and the environment." You might assume, it continues:

…that the EU could demonstrate some threat to humans or the environment, that it had found viable alternatives to the banned pesticides and that it had assessed the consequences of this ban to farming, to food prices and to the poor whose only defence against disease is pesticides. But you would be wrong on all counts. The new regulations not only damage food production in the EU but also threaten public health in distant countries — mainly poor countries in Africa.

The writer of the piece is Jasson Urbach, an economist in the Health Policy Unit of South Africa's Free Market Foundation think-tank, based in Durban, South Africa. He is also a director of "Africa Fighting Malaria". He goes on to write at some length of the specific problems faced by Africa from this EU move, stating baldly: "The new EU regulations compound the woes of the poor who suffer most."

When it comes to our own affairs, enlightened self-interest should come to the fore. Many times we have discussed the effects of poverty in the developing world as the driver for migration. This dire piece of legislation can only add to the pressures. Many of those migrants will end up in the EU and, either directly or indirectly, on our shores.

Then, as global trade collapses, an important part of our salvation package is, as it has always been, measures to increase the wealth of the global community – so that they can afford to buy our goods and services, the real wealth that drives what is left of our economy. In this way too, the this dire law will affect us all.

The trouble is that the linkage is not obvious. The effects are secondary and it is the effects which will be reported, not their cause. And there are many more such effects, many of them stemming from misguided legislation which emanates from Brussels. Jasson Urbach does us a service, pointing out one area of linkage. Tragically, he will be ignored.

He writes with a sense of optimism, noting that, although EU decision-making is opaque and usually unaccountable, "public pressure has brought this into the open, giving African governments, NGOs and charities a chance to speak up for the poor in all the capitals of EU member states."

Furthermore, he notes that UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has said: "The UK does not support these proposals". Thus, what is usually a simple rubber-stamp could meet late resistance from the UK and other governments, whose farmers and consumers have forced them to face the threat.

But there is also the killer line: Benn "did not clarify what he could do." The answer, Mr Urbach, is that he will do nothing. The UK will do nothing. The EU is not "usually unaccountable". It is always unaccountable. It will get its way. People will die. We will all suffer. The EU does not give a damn – it will not even accept that it is part of the problem.

We are truly stacking up trouble and, in the welter of bad news from other sources, the biggest trouble of all is that we have neither the means nor the political will to tackle his problem head-on. However, it is not going to go away. Trouble never does.

COMMENT THREAD

gas+comp[i-gas+comp]What a lovely word … when applied to that dreadful organisation, the European Union. One takes the International Herald Tribune to be a soft Europhile paper, if you will excuse the pun, and when it starts using that word in relation to the EU, it cannot help but bring a smile.

More than a week after the EU put its credibility on the line by intervening in an energy dispute between Russia and Ukraine, says the IHT, the diplomatic gamble has failed to get the gas flowing – "damaging the prestige of the 27-nation bloc in the process."

One does not then need to follow all the twists and turns of the unfolding drama. It should suffice for us to know that, after "eight days of hectic negotiating," no Russian gas is flowing. "Exasperated Europeans", we are told, are now resting their hopes for a breakthrough on a meeting today between Merkel and Putin, the latter deigning to come to Berlin.

That, in itself, is a snub to the EU. The Czech Republic holds the "rotating presidency" so it should be up front in the negotiations. Dealing with the organ-grinder rather that the monkey, is somewhat upsetting the "colleagues'" sensibilities, even if they would rather the Czechs disappeared into a black hole somewhere. Procedures are procedures, and they must be "respected".

However, while the euroweenies fret about their position in life, the world and the universe, one singular fact is crystal clear. The noble monitors despatched by the Lords of the Universe are confirming that the Russians are "not putting gas into multiple entry points as requested." Furthermore, "they are clearly not providing the level of supply needed for transit."

Cue, therefore, an intriguing piece from the Kyiv Post. Not exactly my daily fare, it obviously carries a great deal of weight, as it seems to agree with what I am thinking. What sterner test can there be?

"To little notice in America" (or the UK, I might add), it intones, "a drama is being played out in Eastern Europe that future historians may mark as the beginning of the end of Russia's neo-imperialist ambitions under Vladimir Putin." Stirring stuff that is, especially when it then lines up some impressive facts. Not least of these is that the spat with Ukraine is "completely bogus". Ukraine has by far the largest gas storage facilities in Eastern Europe, going back to Soviet times when it was the centre of the gas industry. It can easily survive the cut-off for the entire winter season by using its stored reserves.

Thus, the real victims are the half a dozen Eastern European countries that have neither alternative supplies nor large storage facilities and are already in the midst of a dire socio-economic emergency – to say nothing of the EU, which is looking distinctly, er … impotent.

Moving on to tell us that Putin needs the money from gas sales rather badly, Kyiv Post then speculates on why Putin is engaged in "such a crass power play". There, we get some really interesting stuff. Russia and its oil and gas industry, it says, "are in the middle of the economic equivalent of a death spiral, with potentially dire political consequences for the Kremlin." It continues:

It was only six months ago that Gazprom, at that time the third largest company in the world with $350 billion capitalization, confidently forecast that it will become the largest in the world with $1 trillion valuation by 2015. Many a Western banker also nodded in agreement to Gazprom’s other prediction of $250/barrel price of oil in 2009.

As Putin managed to build monetary reserves of $600 billion – the third largest in the world – Russia did look invincible for a time. He also bribed the Russian people into political acquiescence by jacking up salaries and pensions 200 percent since 2000, even though GDP and productivity had gone up barely a third of that.

Alas, we are told – and had guessed as much - it was but a house of cards:

With no industrial production worth mentioning, its infrastructure badly dilapidated, virtually all of its food imported and mortality rates only found in sub-Saharan Africa, Russia under Putin had become a classic banana republic with oil and gas. It lived or died depending on the price of bananas over which it had no control.

You can read more of the detail if you like, but the bottom line is that Russia is stuffed … and not by the euroweenies. With its savings currently being wiped out by creeping devaluation, unemployment spreading rapidly and food inflation approaching 30 percent outside of Moscow, it is only a question of time before people take to the streets.

The "colleagues", it would seem, have staked their reputation, and their energy security, on a loser. No matter how they refine their negotiation strategy – even sending in the dreaded Javia Solana – it looks like they are dealing with a dead parrot … a former parrot, if you prefer. They would be better off going for a peace deal with Hamas which required Khaled Meshal to sing Hava Nagila in the mosque every Friday.

Funnily enough, Andrew Wilson, senior policy fellow and expert on Russia and Ukraine at the European Council on Foreign Relations – one of those "experts" who so impress my co-editor – thinks that the crisis has helped to stiffen the EU's resolve. Methinks, given its current condition, it is not its "resolve" that needs stiffening.

But one can only hope that its affliction is one that even Viagra cannot cure.

COMMENT THREAD

Gaza[i-Gaza]There is only so much you can write on any subject before you start repeating yourself, to the point where you are boring both your readers and yourself.

That may be a terrible indictment of the human condition but, as one views the latest Israeli attack on Gaza, the feeling of déjà vu and deadly ennui combines to make you want to turn away and write about something else.

A small cheer for the Scottish Sunday Herald therefore, which heads its leader with the title, "Toothless talk can't solve Israel conflict". It then goes on to note the "apparent impotence" of the so-called "international community" when faced with such a crisis.

"Impotence" is a good word in this context. We have the ritual statements from the UN, from the EU, from the United States and all the others piling in to add their penn'orth, but nothing ever happens – nothing changes.

Be it Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Gaza, DRC or any number of hotspots where fighting or another humanitarian crisis (or both) can break out at any minute, the only response we can count on is a torrent of verbiage from the media and masses of hot air from the politicians.

The Herald's answer to this is that we should be looking for ways to give the United Nations, African Union or whatever regional or global body responsible, the resources and political teeth to implement diplomatic and military measures, when nations, states, or organisations flagrantly defy the collective good and well-being of the majority.

What that misses though is the recognition that the political processes that bind these organisations are part of the problem. Giving them more money simply exacerbates the stresses already within these organisations and, ultimately, produces nothing but more hot air.

Perhaps the real answer, therefore, it to recognise that the current world order is not working, and has not worked for some time - if ever. We have had, since the Second World War, the tranzie doctrine of the "united nations" acting collectively, and it has failed.

Thus, while The Herald wants the term "international community" to have "real resonance or relevance", what we are actually seeing is living proof that there is no such thing as an "international community" in any meaningful sense of the words – and never will be.

That suggests that we also need a new paradigm. Maybe it would be a good idea if we gave "national interest" another chance, allowing those involved to take whatever action they felt necessary, with the rest minding their own businesses.

As with Afghanistan, there are plenty of those who have opinions, but precious few who are prepared to put real resources into helping solve the problems. Thus, in a new world order, those who "do" should be allowed to do, and the rest – like the incessantly posturing EU – should simply shut up and keep out of it.

The result may be bloody, but is what we have really any better?

COMMENT THREAD

British+troops[i-British+troops]While the UK is cosying up to the EU, with its support for the EU navy, it seems to be getting less support from the Americans for its efforts in Afghanistan.

That is certainly the case, according to the Times this morning, which has it that the US is accusing Britain "over [its] military failings in Afghanistan."

The source of the accusations (plural) is identified as Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, a man who has some good knowledge of counter-insurgency operations and who has had some impressive things to say about his own military. Furthermore, he must have something going for him as he was appointed by Bush and has been asked to remain in his job under Barack Obama.

Anyhow, it is Gates who is "understood" to have expressed strong reservations about counterinsurgency operations in British-controlled Helmand province.

One of his concerns seems to be that, since a total of 132 British soldiers have now died in Afghanistan since 2001, the government is worried about public opinion turning against the campaign. It is thus, as it was in Iraq, overly risk averse, with strategy being dictated by the need to avoid casualties rather than by operational requirements.

This is coming to a head with US plans to mount a "surge", contrasted with the British reluctance to commit large numbers of extra troops. British officials are thus concerned that the US may take over control of Helmand – if the British fail to step up to the plate.

The willingness of the US to intervene in the British zone has been a recent feature of the Afghani campaign. Unlike Iraq, where the management of the southern zone was left entirely to the British – even when it was obvious that it was going belly up – US forces have already contributed considerable forces to operations in the British area, providing US airborne troops for the re-capture of Musa Qala last year and US Marines for operations in Garmsir earlier this year.

That the Americans have had to intervene may be behind what we are told are "grievances" over Britain's lack of equipment, including helicopters, the latter having left troops unable to perform the same tasks as US counterparts and led to more cautious tactics.

That was certainly the case in Musa Qala, where troops from the elite 82nd airborne spearheaded the assault, being flown in by helicopter to the northern outskirts of the town. In that one operation, the US deployed more helicopters than the entire contingent fielded by the UK in Afghanistan.

There is also grumbling, we are told, about the regularity with which US airstrikes are called to rescue British troops – the US providing about 90 percent of the air support across the entire theatre. Much valued though the British air contribution is, there are simply not enough aircraft to cover the entire range of UK ground operations.

But something which is almost certainly a legacy of Iraq is reported "tension and resentment" over the air of superiority adopted by British commanders such as Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster. He, according to The Times has suggested that his American counterparts needed to take lessons from Britain's experience in Northern Ireland and Malaya.

The paper also tells us that David Kilcullen, an adviser to the US State Department, told a recent seminar that there had been "lots of fairly snide criticism" from the British whose attitude had been: "Look at us, we're on the street in our soft caps and everyone loves us."

The repost, not without justice, is that such claims have been undercut by the performance since then. "It would be fair to say that in 2006 the British Army was defeated in the field in southern Iraq," says Kilcullen.

At the same semiar, Daniel Marston, an American consultant who until recently was a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and has been embedded with troops in Afghanistan, said that Britain was being forced to learn some humility after being "embarrassed by their performance".

This is then explained by Carter Malkesian, an expert at the Centre of Naval Analysis. He says: "Among those in the Department of Defence who are paying attention to these operations, Britain's reputation has probably fallen. But they still recognise that the British Army, among all the allies, are those that fight the most and fight the best."

Needless to say, a "senior British defence source" counters these points by saying: "We are punching above our weight in Afghanistan and are the second biggest contributor of all the Nato allies, so for anyone to single us out for criticism is plainly wrong and unfair."

However, whether the British find criticism hard to take, or not, there is no question that the reputation of the British Army has been considerably tarnished by its performance in Iraq. And, whatever might be the skillset of the British military in Afghanistan, they are no longer in a position to lecture the Americans about how to conduct counter-insurgency operations.

However, if the British are not disposed to listen to their allies, they might perhaps be more inclined to take note of one of their former adversaries, Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. "The Americans," he said, "it is fair to say, profited far more than the British from their experience in Africa, thus confirming that education is easier than re-education."

Often the greatest barrier to learning is the conviction that the subject is already known, and that there is nothing new to learn – especially if the source of that learning is believed to be inferior. The Americans may have – and indeed have – got things wrong, but they have also shown that they are capable of learning from their mistakes. That same ability is not always evident in the British ranks.

In this, perhaps, the British would be better off with the EU. Being rude about the French and Italians comes much more naturally - and their insults are more readily ignored.

Once again, I am cross-posting this on Defence of the Realm.

COMMENT THREAD

a400mmont1024[i-a400mmont1024]It does not really matter how much they deny it, or how many soothing words the Europhiliacs utter. Actions speak louder than words.

From the very first, before even the European Union was formally launched, there had been an attempt to launch a European Army, giving rise to the European Defence Community (EDC). And, although this attempt failed – scuppered by the French Assembly in 1954, the ambition has never gone away.

Thus we read, courtesy of the IHT the latest development aimed at bringing this ambition to fruition, with an agreement between "EU governments" to establish a joint military air squadron.

So far, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain have signed on to the initiative, which will be implemented by the European Defence Agency.

Notably, the UK has not signed up – although that is the way things happen. The "colleagues" set up the structure first, with us sitting on the sidelines and then, when it is fully established, we enter into a co-operation agreement and then, step-by-step we get sucked in until, in the fullness of time, British officials and politicians become the most enthusiastic supporters.

Ostensibly, this initiative is to improve the transport capabilities of the "colleagues" to far-flung operations such as Afghanistan, Africa or the Middle East. But, of course, it is not such thing. Aircraft sharing and joint-leasing could easily be arranged without going to the extent of developing full-blown squadron structure. This is all about political integration – as it has always been.

Needless to say, at the core of this capability will be the long-delayed Airbus A400M, which the IHT is still fanatasing about being ready in 2009 but, however, long it takes, the EU will wait patiently for the opportunity to adorn them with the ring of stars – the core of an emerging EU air force.

To follow is a Franco-German heavy-lift helicopter project, in which other EU member states will be encouraged to join and, with that – in slow steady stages – the EU "force" will grow.

Also, it seems, ministers have agreed that at least one of Europe's five operational aircraft carriers will be at sea at all times. These would be escorted by destroyers and frigates from various other EU nations, which would also provide refuelling and other logistics vessels. Two of those, of course, will be British carriers and, right from the very start, these have always been "pencilled in" as part of the EU's European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF).

Since 1999 when Romano Prodi declared overtly the ambition to create a European Army, teasing us that we could call it Mary Ann or Margaret, but it would still be a European Army, the writing has been on the wall.

An independent military is, of course, a vital part of the state-building to which the EU aspires. Today, it is a little bit closer and, tomorrow, it will be closer still, drawing closer as each day passes to its ultimate ambition. Those who cannot see the shape of the end game are either blind, stupid or knaves (or all three).

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]On the whole I disagree with the boss, when he says that there is little to choose between the two presidential candidates. (He is not going to shoot me because he is in Bradford and I am in London and that's the way it's going to stay.) There are, in my opinion, bigger issues at stake than temporary climate policies or, even, pace such commentators as Dan Hannan, attitudes to the European Union.

On the second, it is clear, that Obama knows nothing about the subject and will say and do whatever the State Department tells him. As we all know, the State Department is historically pro-integration. McCain may have some track record of supporting European integration but it is not uppermost in his mind. Whoever wins, Europe is becoming less important in American foreign policy thinking. How that will impact on Anglo-American relations remains to be seen but much will depend on us as well as on the Americans.

On the first, I have to admit to being more concerned with such matters as a possible left-wing swerve in the United States that will reduce that country's economy to Jimmy Carter-type levels; or an attack on that greatest of all modern political documents, the American Constitution; or a possible destruction of the First Amendment. Obama, I am afraid, has displayed himself to be ignorant enough to do all these things. However, I do not think that even if The One is elected he and the somewhat corrupt political machine that he will take with him to the White House will destroy the United States. He may set it back quite a lot, though. And a set-back for America is a set-back for us all.

That is why, with all his faults, John McCain is the man I am rooting for.

The racism accusations worry me not at all. As has been said already the fact that a half-African politician could get to the top shows that racism is not as big an issue as some people on his side make out. The fact that his weaknesses have prevented him to do better in the election campaign despite the fantastic amount of money he has spent on it and despite the big media being almost entirely and very dishonestly on his side shows that people look at his qualities and not the colour of his skin, just as Martin Luther King dreamt it all those years ago.

Besides, anyone can play at isms. Given the treatment dealt out to Hillary Clinton, the dubious way in which her actual victory in the Primaries was discarded, and the vile accusations levelled at Sarah Palin, would it not be fair to say that all those who vote for Obama are guilty of sexism? About as fair as to say that all those who do not vote for him are guilty of racism. What's sauce for the goose ...

Having said all that, I need to add that whoever wins today and however long it will take to get the results, we can still salute the process. Let me remind all our readers: the people of the United States get to choose their government which, in all its various branches, at federal, state, country, city, district level, is responsible to those same people. When was the last time we could say that about this country?

Could this be the sort of envy for the reality of American democracy and American freedom as well as a sense of impotence as far as our own politics are concerned that fuels that insane anti-Americanism we have all witnessed in Britain?

Yesterday I went to the launch of the new web based campaign and political research group, America in the World. I was not all that impressed by David Cameron's speech but then you would expect that. In the circumstances, I don't think he should have made it quite so clear that he thought Obama would win and that he was basically on that side of the divide, not least because a good deal of European Obamamania is fuelled by the self-same anti-Americanism the new group is supposed to combat.

One of the other speeches, however, referred to a couple of recent polls. We know the one that gave the figure of 30 percent even in Britain of people who thought America was a greater danger to peace than Iran, China or North Korea. One would like to know where that 30 percent would prefer to work or spend holidays in? Still, attitudes like that are worrying, if not downright insane.

Apparently, America in the World conducted its own parallel polls, one about whom people would like to see as President of France and President of the United States. According to what was said, most people in various countries did not know or care who would be the first but almost everyone had an opinion on the second. This means nothing by itself - who becomes President of France is not really all that important even to the French, given the state of political affairs in Europe. America is, naturally, important to us all. And America must stay as a beacon of light for freedom and democracy. America will lead the Anglosphere, no matter what happens in the next 48 hours and even if there will be a temporary set-back.

UPDATE: I was going to put up pictures of the two presidential candidates but decided that the one above was more attractive. By the way, Governor Palin has been cleared of all ethics violation by independent counsel (and I stress the word independent). Amazing, isn't it?

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]
The trouble with you, Richard, one of my long-suffering friends observed, is that your idea of attacking someone is to stand at the door of a crowded bar and let loose at him with a double-barrelled shotgun. No wonder everyone dives for cover, friend and foes alike.

It is much better, he counselled, to go into the bar, shake the man by the hand, have a drink with him – and then slide a stiletto between his ribs. That way, you can be out of there, bidding everyone else a cheery good night, and no one will even notice it was you.

But hey! I haven't got where I am, living in a seedy Bradford suburb with a pension plan worth slightly less than a pair of second-hand whore's knickers – and going down just as fast – by heeding good advice.

Where was I?

Ah! Our target for tonight is Mr Andrew Pierce, that esteemed member of the fourth estate, highly respected and fêted by the chattering classes. In The Daily Telegraph today, he writes a long feature article headed, "Financial crisis: Our masters' summer of denial". And the strap tells you more: "What were our leaders doing as the credit crisis developed? Posturing and relaxing, says Andrew Pierce."

Now, don't get me wrong – this is a good piece, proving that the man has a brain and can write. His thesis is that, while the storm clouds of a financial meltdown gathered, the political elites were disporting themselves at Wimbledon and other salubrious venues, or indulging – as did the Labour Party – in an orgy of internal bickering over the leadership issue.

Regrettably, writes Pierce, in a stunning flash of originality, "Nero and Rome burning springs to mind." He then cites Tim Congdon, the economist who was an adviser to the last Conservative government, who says: "There has been a wholesale collapse of authority and competence in our ruling elite…".

Citing this piece with evident approval in the leader column, the writer unfortunately anonymous, we have another profound and well-written exegesis which sternly informs us that, "The politicians failed, and we will pay the price." In full flow, as the leader-writer develops his theme, we get:

The Bank's insouciance was encouraged by stupefying political complacency. In his Budget in March, Alistair Darling repeatedly insisted that Britain was better placed than almost all its competitors to face "economic turbulence". He cut his growth forecasts, yet still expected a 2.5 per cent expansion next year, a prediction that should warrant an inquiry into the quality of Treasury number-crunching. Why should we believe him now when he says the recession that he failed to predict will be less painful that previous slumps?

And then we are treated to this strident conclusion which has us cheering to the rafters:

Given the economic circumstances, the Conservatives should be 25 points ahead in the polls, but they have yet to find the right voice to vent the spleen of the nation - and have anyway spent the past week on the defensive over their shadow chancellor's summer antics in Corfu. Are the abiding images of an economic crisis to be these: the Bank of England Governor at Wimbledon while failing to cut interest rates soon enough; politicians luxuriating on the yachts of the super-rich; empty benches in Parliament despite the worst financial crisis for 80 years; a governing party concerned more with its own internal machinations than with dragging the economy back from the brink? At times like this, the political classes are meant to earn their corn. They flunked it and we will all pay the price.

But just hang on a minute. Where was the media when all the chaps were disporting themselves and pratting about with their internal squabbles? Do we recall posting one or two pieces making just tiny references to the media, with the odd suggestion or two that our revered fourth estate might possibly be missing the plot?

In general terms, we noted on 15 January 2008 the strange absence of the media from any serious debate about our plight, commenting on a piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, where we opined:

Actually, Ambrose was writing in the business section, a completely separate section where there is still some serious news. More and more, one gets the impression that there are two separate newspapers, one the main newspaper which should more rightly be known as the entertainment section, while the hard news is consigned to the business section.

More recently, as we were sinking into the doo doo, we actually wrote this:

Thus, when the prime minister calls a press conference in No 10 on the economic situation, with the chancellor of the exchequer standing beside him, and announces he is going to go to Paris, and tells the media that he intends to put forward his proposals "about how a stability programme can work for each country", you might just have thought that some of the assembled journalists – or even one – might on our behalf be just a little interested in what those proposals were, what the reception might be and sundry other details.

But no! This is our media we are talking about. First off in the questioning was that dreadful Nick Robinson, oozing with self-importance. He launches into a question about Brown's personal relations with Mandelson and why he picked him for a job in the cabinet. Brown answers the question only to get Robinson put a detailed supplementary, on exactly the same issue.

Many, many more pieces of a similar tenor did we write, the latest being this one - far too numerous to cite here, but if you google our site, using the search string "soap opera" you will find no shortage of comment, not least this and this, the latter actually bearing the title "a retreat into infantilism".

And now, having prattled and preened, itself indulging in the vacuous "soap opera" that has so dominated the headlines, The Daily Telegraph in the persons of Mr Andrew Pierce and others, has the unmitigated gall to write of "our masters' summer of denial", complaining that our political classes had lost the plot.

As to their own role, it seems to me that our media friends are also floating in that North African river. Now, where was that shotgun?

COMMENT THREAD

Exiled+journalists[i-Exiled+journalists]Just returned from a forum organized by the Exiled Journalists Network (who appear to have exiled the apostrophe) who appear to be a useful bunch of people, though I am not that impressed by the patrons: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who is known to us all, Richard Dowden, Director of the Royal African Society, who has his moments of sanity, Lindsey Hilsum, Channel 4 News International Editor and former NUJ President Tim Lezard (and the less one says about the NUJ in connection with media freedom, the better).

This particular forum was of great interest as it was about the situation in Belarus, a country that has somehow become everybody's favourite tyranny, so the Left feels justified in talking about it. Apparently, President Lukashenka is well aware of this anomalous and, to him, not unuseful situation. At a recent press conference he said to the assembled hacks proponents of journalistic integrity that they should be very happy to talk to him as he was "Europe's last tyrant", a moniker he clearly revels in.

This story was told by Mike Jempson, Director of the co-sponsoring organization, the MediaWise Trust and he was not amused by the idea that this Belarussian dictator should be amusing himself at the journos' expense.

Even less amused was Marc Gruber, who was there from the International Federation of Journalists, a self-important group about which we have written before. He had looked up Belarus on Google News and found that in all languages there were more stories about football than about the rather dubiously run elections. How could this be so? How could journalists be so forgetful of their high calling?

Well now, could this have anything to do with the fact that journalists and editors are interested in selling their particular brand of the media (except for the BBC who have an earmarked income but that's another story) and there are more people out there interested in football than in elections in far-off countries of which they know little, care even less and where the chances of a free and fair vote are remote? Is Mr Gruber not a journalist himself?

Some of us would welcome serious reporting of news from a little nearer home, such as the European Union. It seems that reporting from absolutely everywhere is now left to the blogs. We shall endeavour to provide a substitute for the Big Media.

COMMENT THREAD

Cameron+2223[i-Cameron+2223]To judge from the US press – which has "exploded" with news and discussion on the "mark to market" rule – David Cameron should be congratulated for yesterday putting his finger on the one issue which, in the judgement of an increasing number of experts, is wholly responsible for perpetuating the current financial crisis.

Putting this into perspective, one only needs to quote the Wall Street Journal editorial. It says, "Mark-to-market accounting rules have turned a large problem into a humongous one." Many experts, Congdon included, are attributing this rule to the failure of Northern Rock, Lehmans and, most recently, Bradford and Bingley, all of which were solvent by traditional accounting rules and need not have gone down.

The problem having been identified in the US, the responsible authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which sets U.S. accounting rules, have moved with speed to "clarify" the rule, bringing comment from The Washington Post, the LA Times and hundreds of US media outlets.

There has been discussion on all the main US TV channels and the US blogs have been hosting a storming debate about the rule, its meaning and what needs to be done about it, with blogs like Powerline offering an example of the type of informed comment for which the best US political blogs are rightly valued.

So intense has been the discussion and interest that now, as the Paulson's "bailout bill" goes back to Congress, a proposal is being considered to scrap the rule altogether. If this happens, by the weekend, "mark to market" will be toast. If the experts are correct, the US banking system will be well on its way to recovery. According to some, it may not even need Paulson’s $700 billion bailout.

So, what of the UK scene?

Despite Cameron's perceptive - if belated - intervention, his exact comments have been retailed in only two mainstream newspapers, The Scotsman and The Daily Express, without comment or explanation. As for the "political" (or any) UK blogs – apart from this one - my initial search yielded only one which, with unintended irony, tells us:

Finally, he suggested that he would support the government in its endeavours to address the complex issue of "marking to market", a process whereby banks price daily their assets which, it is argued, is causing bank stocks to fall even further. The proposal is that this practice should be suspended. Quite how this would work, Cameron did not explain, therefore, we can assume that it will be challenging or perhaps, not even possible.

The author is dead right when he writes that, "we can assume that it (suspending the rule) will be challenging or perhaps, not even possible", the reason being that "elephant in the room", the fact that "the practice" is locked into an EU directive. Thus, while this issue in the US is being chewed over in 21,390 blog posts under "mark to market", the issue over here is simply not on the agenda. The media and the the bulk of the British political blogosphere are silent. The chatterati don't "do" Europe, policy or anything serious - with the (now) admirable exception of Centre Right.

Despite that, here in "Europe", the government is acting. Not the posturing bunch of fools we have in London, but our real government in Brussels. This we learn from Retuers with a piece published on the net, by Business Day - a South African magazine, for Chrissake!

This piece tells us that the EU will "look at whether mark-to-market accounting rules … could be eased." But that will not be until 15 October, two weeks hence. And, if they do "look", they will not make any immediate decision. For anything to happen, the whole laborious process of EU decision-making must kick in. It could be months, if not years, before anything is changed.

Thus, while Brussels fiddles, the banks burn.

That, more than anything illustrates where politics stand in the UK. Contrasted with the United States, where there are still some vestiges of democracy, the issue is widely chewed over in the public domain. Then, with speed, the authorities and elected representatives react.

In this country, where the power lies with Brussels, discourse is suffocated under a stultifying blanket of deception, so pervasive that the government does not even mention the problem.

We have a leader of the opposition who cannot even bring himself to mention an "EU directive" resorting instead to the euphemism, "international regulation". Nor does he dare to say that we have to go cap in hand to Brussels to resolve the issue but instead resorts to babbling about having "our regulatory authorities, together with the European regulators," address "this difficult issue."

Even what Cameron did say, though, should have sounded the alarm bells – yet nothing. When politicians actually talk about policy and solutions they are ignored. Small wonder they resort to the theatre. That is how they get the attention and the headlines.

The problem lies thus not only with the politicians. It lies with the media, with the bulk of the blogosphere and the rest, who prefer entertainment and trivia to dealing with real issues, real policies and real world solutions. To that extent, we get what we deserve and deserve what we get.

Behave like infants and you will be treated like infants. To see what happens when grown-ups get involved in politics, look to the US – and weep.

COMMENT THREAD

electricty+bill[i-electricty+bill]Philip Johnston is one of the "good guys", writing intelligently on a wide range of subjects for his Monday column in The Daily Telegraph, largely by not entirely to do with state bureaucracy and waste.

Unfortunately, in today's effort he typifies the perils of stepping outside his normal brief without doing his homework.

His theme for today is "carbon capture", something we did last night for the "Horlicks" so I did not want to return to it so quickly. But Johnston's efforts should not pass without reward.

He starts his piece by expressing a lukewarm sympathy for the Greenpeace vandals activists who got away with damaging Kingsnorth power station. This is in part conditioned by his dislike of the plant. Brought up near the Medway Towns, he writes, "I yield to no one in a dislike of the Kingsnorth power station. It dominated the landscape of my childhood, a brooding, belching presence across the estuarial creeks and marshes …".

Thus conditioned, the man has swallowed the greenie propaganda, hook line and sinker, arguing that carbon capture would enable us to produce "clean" electricity from coal, hence reducing the "belching", one assumes. And, in so doing, we could take advantage of plentiful supplies of coal in this country and improve our energy security by reducing our reliance on countries such as Russia for gas.

Taking on board the issue of energy security, Johnston – like so many writers who venture into this field – clearly has not bothered to discover the sources of the coal from which we generate electricity.

Yet, as we pointed out in this piece written in early August, last year the UK consumed 62.7 million tons of coal, of which 52.4 million tons was used for electricity generation. Of that, the British coal industry actually produced 17 million tons in 2007 (with 2.9 million tons lifted from stock) while we imported 43.3 million tons. Of this, 22 million tons came from Russia and 12 million tons from South Africa.

Thus, all other things being equal, in the short-term (for ten years or more which it would take to rebuild our coal industry), increased coal usage for electricity generation would require more coal imports from countries like Russia and South Africa, reducing rather than increasing our energy security. And that, of course, assumes the coal is there to be bought, which is a dangerous assumption as both countries have capacity problems.

Even then, though, all things are not equal. If as is suggested, carbon capture could absorb 40 percent of the power output of a power station, the "clean coal" option would require additional power stations just to deliver the same amount of usable power that we produce today. Since these would also - presumably - require carbon capture, the total extra capacity required would be 66 percent.

With some 52 million tons of coal currently used annually for electricity generation, that would equate to an extra 34 million tons of coal needed just to stand still, all of which would have to be imported. As an indication of just how mad that would be, it would absorb twice the entire annual output of the British coal industry (17 million tons).

This though just deals with the energy security issue. Our best estimate is that carbon capture could also double the cost of electricity produced from coal-fired power stations. Add to that the cost of the other barking mad policy – the reliance on renewables – and we are looking at the overall doubling of electricity prices, over and above today's inflated rates. Is this really what Mr Johnston wants?

However, the best is yet to come. Mr Johnston "dislikes" Kingsnorth power station but it would appear that he is content to visit his dislike on others. To make up for the power loss occasioned by carbon capture, the generators would have to build another six power stations the size of Kingsnorth – without producing a single watt more usable electricity.

The trouble is that Mr Johnston means well. Yet, in advocating measures without having the first idea of the consequences, he potentially does great harm. That is possibly to overstate his influence but he is by no means the only one in thrall to this madness. And therein lies our problem.

COMMENT THREAD

Carbon+capture[i-Carbon+capture]"A frisson of excitement" would be something of an exaggeration, but it is fair to say that a certain amount of interest has been generated by the news of the commissioning of a new, experimental carbon capture plant in eastern Germany.

As reported by Deutsche Welle, the Swedish energy utility Vattenfall has invested €70 million in the plant to service a 30 MW lignite-burning power station at Schwarze Pumpe in the Lausitz region of eastern Germany.

The carbon dioxide emitted, at a rate of nine tons per hour, will be compressed and pumped into deep, porous rock in a gas field in northern Germany. The process is considered economically viable because the emissions can be offset against the costs of having to buy carbon permits under the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS).

No figures are given for increased fuel consumption, although the German conservation group BUND argues that the process carries a 10 percent penalty. Other sources suggest up to 25 percent fuel increases with as much as a 60 percent hike in operating costs compared with conventional coal-fired generation.

This unit is very much a pilot and Vattenfall now plans to build two "demonstration plants" 10 times that size in Germany and Denmark by 2015. It then aims to commission its first "large-scale CCS power station" in 2020.

However, no estimate is given for the cost of a full-scale plant although it is likely to be expensive. The best UK comparison we have is the abortive Peterhead scheme which was set to cost £500 million to service a 350 MW gas-fired plant.

This effectively doubles the capital cost of a generating plant which with the additional fuel and operating costs – offset only by the "snake oil" ETS certificates – makes it something of a bad deal, even ignoring the utter fatuity of attempting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the pursuit of limiting "climate change".

Despite all this, there might be some sense in Germany adopting the technology if it enables generators to continue using stocks of highly polluting but cheap lignite, staving off the day when it has to import all its coal stocks and perilously increasing its energy dependency.

For Britain though, there is no sense at all in carbon capture. Apart from the massively increased costs, the additional fuel consumption increases our dependence on imported coal supplies. With 22 million of the 52 million tons of coal we use for electricity generation imported from Russia, the very last thing we want to do is add to that for no gain in supply capacity.

With all that, one would have thought that a future Conservative government might be somewhat less than enthusiastic about the idea. But, if the comments of Tory energy spokesman Alan Duncan are any guide, the reverse is the case.

As retailed by Conservative Home, we learn of a pledge to fund a minimum of three CCS plants in the UK. Besotted with the idea of becoming technology leaders in this field, Duncan sees this as an "enormous economic opportunity for the UK" as well as an "environmental necessity".

With China and India leading a world revival in coal burning, he avers, we can export carbon capture technology, adding: "That's the sort of policy ambition that UK plc needs to secure competitive advantage in the new energy economy."

Thus it seems, the Conservative Party has become infected with the enthusiasm of europhile greenie MP Tim Yeo, and we are committed to this madness regardless of cost – MPs receiving a handsome contribution towards their electricity bills from the taxpayer.

But, if Duncan really wants an export opportunity on the back of emission-free electricity production, he should be looking at reactivating our nuclear industry, and in particular pebble bed technology. Already, South Africa is edging closer to building a commercial scale unit in Koeberg near Cape Town, with the signing of a $242 million construction contract last month.

The go-ahead has been given for fuel production and talks are being held on developing the system for producing synthetic fuels.

We know also that China is at an advanced stage in developing pebble bed technology, France is pursuing the system and the United States is taking an increasing interest. The US Idaho National Laboratory is working on its own version of the design.

A particular advantage of the system seems to be its ability to provide high-temperature heat (up to 950°C), which can be used for a range of industrial uses such as fertiliser production, shale-oil recovery and coal-to-liquids, as well as hydrogen and electricity production.

With such dynamism elsewhere in the world, the failure of our current government to get to grips with the technology is bad enough. Nevertheless, we have come to expect nothing better from this tired and failed administration.

But, when the knee-jerk Conservatives seem enthused only by useless, dead-end technology like carbon capture and have singularly failed to address the nuclear challenge, it seems that there can be no optimism at all that our growing (but entirely unnecessary) energy crisis is going to be resolved.

COMMENT THREAD

Olympics[i-Olympics]Behind the razzmatazz of the Peking Olympics, there is a darker picture, redolent of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, where the country was starved of food, fuel and power simply to keep the Games going.

This was covered by Christopher Booker in his seminal book called the Games War, to which he referred in one of his recent columns, pointing out the uncanny parallels between then and now.

So it is that The Daily Telegraph (business section) is reporting that China's industrial heartland is facing crippling power shortages, with more than a dozen provinces already rationing electricity. The country is suffering from its biggest power crisis since 2004, when a 40-gigawatt shortfall left three quarters of China in the dark.

The proximate cause is a shortage of coal – an issue we rehearsed extensively in February - then noting how Chinese pressure on the global market was driving up prices to record levels. More to the point, the actual cause is a highly regulated internal market which caps the prices of coal and electricity, making it difficult for companies to invest in new capacity – on top of a creaking infrastructure, leaving a shortage of rail transport to deliver coal where it is needed.

Anyhow, so serious has the situation become in China now that, in order to keep the lights burning in Peking, and the television cameras rolling, that other areas are being starved of power.

In the northern province of Shanxi - produces nearly one tenth of China's aluminium and a fifth of its steel - the population of almost 34m people is having to contend with regular blackouts and metal producers are having to curb production. The local administration has forecast a five gigawatt shortage this summer and put its industry on strict rations.

In Shandong province, the government has moved stockpiles of coal to Peking to ensure power supplies in the capital. As a result, the amount of power available to businesses in Shandong has fallen by around a third in August, leading some factories to run assembly lines at night or to shut parts of their plants.

Nor can this be dismissed as a little local difficulty. The Chinese government has responded by imposing a tariff on coal exports which, according to the Indian Financial Express is driving up prices and putting even more pressure on global supplies.

The metal industries are going to be particularly hard hit as China exports nearly half of the world's metallurgical coke. Furthermore, it China has set an export quota of 12.01 million tons this year, and had already exported 8.3 million tons in the first seven months of 2008. Export prices are thus expected to hit $1,000 a ton, up from $700 currently.

As to coal supplies generally, India will be a key factor in the increasing global competition for energy supplies. The Indian coal industry is the fourth largest in terms of coal reserves and third largest in terms of coal production in the world. The country, however, faces huge deficit of coal. Coal requirement electricity generation is expected to grow ten percent this year and demand for both thermal and coking coal may rise to 1.87 billion tonne a year by 2026.

As supplies from China tighten, India can be expected to look elsewhere for its supplies and, as we pointed out earlier, it is bidding against the UK (and Germany) for South African coal, on which we are currently dependent for much of our electricity generation.

Nor can we rely on cheap gas to make up our shortfall. Today's news of a leak in a North Sea pipeline, in the Norwegian gas field, has triggered a 15 percent hike in UK wholesale gas prices, pointing up the fragility in supply, a situation made worse by Russia's adventures in Georgia.

On this, The Times quotes David Hunter, an analyst from McKinnon & Clarke, the energy consultancy. He says, "Gas available to export from Norway to countries including the UK will be cut significantly and, without adequate storage, the UK will be left to negotiate with Russia and the Far East for supplies or risk running low on energy."

That brings us back full circle. With supply difficulties in China, and India sucking in imports, there are going to be no easy options for the UK, which is going to have to pay through the nose to ensure continuity of its own supplies.

For this who are watching and marvelling at the performance of the athletes, therefore, the message is to enjoy it while you can. The reckoning, as always, will come later … we are heading in the same direction as the divers.

COMMENT THREAD