Tuesday, February 03, 2009
That totemic figure
Lord M robustly defended his beloved EU rules yesterday, in an emergency statement to the Lords on the foreign workers' crisis. In so doing, he sought to remind us that there are "300,000 UK companies operating elsewhere in Europe".
Operating across the oggin does not, of course, mean that they are hiring British workers, or for that matter, that they are not bringing in foreign workers into the UK. The figure – even if it is accurate – is therefore pretty meaningless. It also sounds somewhat on the high side, given that there are only two million registered companies in the UK. Mandelson's figure would put it about one in six operating over there.
Mind you, Lord M is not the only one given to euro-hyperbole. In January last year, our revered leader claimed that 700,000 British companies had "trading ties to Europe" which sounds even more implausible, although I suppose it depends on what you mean by "ties".
It is interesting though how often the figure "300,000" comes up in official and semi-official statistics. According to the French embassy in 2007, an estimated 300,000 French people were living in Britain, two thirds of them in London and the south-east.
In December 2002, then trade secretary Patricia Hewitt was telling us that EU enlargement could provide up to 300,000 new jobs which could be secured by British firms. At that time, incidentally, she rejected warnings that competition from low-wage economies in the former Eastern bloc would drive out British workers. How droll!
The figure 300,000 cropped more recently, this time in January of this yearwhen the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimated that 300,000 people could be made redundant between January and March of 2009. One wonders if those are the same people who gained jobs from EU enlargement – unless, of course, all the French persons in the southeast are now unemployed, or about to become so.
A total of 300,000 also happens to be the number of entry visas wrongly issued by UK immigration officials each year, which means that millions of illegal immigrants may have been let into the country, soaking up all those jobs that the French persons haven't snaffled, one presumes.
Entertainingly, 300,000 is the number of who will lose their existing pension scheme benefits when "planned reforms to workplace schemes come into force in 2012", given that they still have workplaces by then.
And just to show how popular this totemic figure is with government, in 1998, Lord Simon, then the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, announced that there had been 300,000 requests for "business preparations for the euro" factsheets from businesses and trade associations. The number might be somewhat less if they were re-issued today.
What we can't tell you, of course, is how many British workers, in total, are employed outside this country, or how many foreign nationals are currently working in the UK. That information would be really useful and interesting which, of course, is why we can't have it. I bet the difference is greater than 300,000 though but I'm taking no bets on which way that balance lies.
COMMENT THREADMonday, February 02, 2009
Open Letter to the Taxpayers' Alliance
Dear officers and researchers of theTaxpayers' Alliance,
It does not make me at all happy to have to write this letter. I have been a vocal and admiring supporter of your organization since its inception and have even blogged about its work, here andhere.
The boss, on the other hand, has attacked you on a number of occasions and accused you of not really understanding the EU and its ramifications. I know you don't like those attacks and I don't blame you. When the boss goes into battle fur flies. I also know that in private conversation many of you say that, of course, you do understand that VAT is an EU tax and campaigning against one bit of it is a waste of time but it is a good thing to get people worked up about one issue so they can progress to others. Somehow the second half of it never happens but that's politics.
So, let's move on to recent developments. A little while ago you announcedthat together with Global Vision you were intending to raise the issue of "Europe" in the run-up to the elections in June. An admirable thing to do though the first effort of that campaign, another poll that showed most of those asked wanting "a loosening of ties with the EU", was, as the bossexplained an example of fudging the issue. To put it bluntly, it ain't on offer.
Changing the terms of our membership requires a re-writing of the treaties and that requires an IGC, which has to reach a unanimous agreement. To reach that we have to offer something in return for that ill-defined looser membership. I doubt if the people asked in that poll know this and I am reasonably sure that they were not told by the pollsters.
Ah but it raises their consciousness (to use a Marxist term). Perhaps, but to use false arguments achieves nothing and puts the cause in jeopardy. If the other side lies and we lie, why should people choose our lies over theirs?
So we come to your latest effort in matters European – campaigning about the CFP. I welcome everyone who joins the anti-CFP campaign. All of us, veterans of the fight, do so. As it happens I couldn't get to your demo outside the European Parliament building in Queen Anne's Gate (why the European Parliament of all the institutions?) but it looked jolly. Maybe I should have gone for the t-shirt – my very old Save Britain's Fish shirt has finally given up the ghost.
You have also produced a report on the sorry state of affairs in the fishing industry, one that was mentioned in various media outlets. I recall previous reports being mentioned in the very same outlets and the same shock-horror tone being adopted. But, actually, I must be wrong. Because this is, according to your blurb, the first full report on the Common Fisheries Policy and the effect it has had on the industry and the state of the fish supply.
Now this puzzled me. Because I recall doing many research papers and briefings on the subject, some of which included figures; I recall attending a huge rally of fishermen in Central hall many years ago; taking part in numerous, packed-to-the-rafts fringe meetings at party conference at which the speakers produced much information and many figures; being a speaker in debates on the subject; reading well grounded and carefully calculated reports by Save Britain's Fish; questions and debates in both Houses of Parliament. Clearly, none of this happened; nobody did any research and nobody managed to produce any figures before. I began to wonder whether I existed at all.
So I spoke to one or two people and was assured that yes, I did exist and yes, all those events did take place. There were research papers and meetings and debates; there was a carefully constructed policy paper by Owen Paterson, which had a good deal of input from the boss and which, unlike your own rather cautious report, actually offered alternative ideas (much debated by fishermen and their organizations); and yes, there was this book called The Great Deception that had a good deal about the CFP in it; and let's not even mention the many articles by Christopher Booker and postings on EUReferendum (far, far too many to link to but is easy enough to do through the research engine and just to whet your appetite, here is one).
I even telephoned Tom Hay the founder and first chairman of the Fishermen's Association Ltd up in Peterhead (where there is no snow). Yes, apparently he exists as well and remains a source of much information on the subject.
The point is not that you produce figures of your own (which seem a little thinly sourced, by the way) or that you give your own account of how the policy developed (which appears to leave certain crucial events out) but that you do not acknowledge those who had done the work before you. Acknowledging other people's work is not only courteous but sensible from your point of view: it looks better if your research can quote other sources.
I cannot help feeling that the campaign to raise awareness of Europe is a way of making the Conservative Party seem to be the real eurosceptic party for the European election in June. That, I suspect, is why you want to "own" the topic while making sure that discussion does not outrun the party's policy. Of course, I may be wrong but the timing, the refusal to refer to anyone before you and the timidity of the actual proposals (as well as the vagueness of the facts) all point in that direction.
It cannot have pleased you that the Boy-King of the Conservative Party decided to bring Ken Clarke back to the front bench (though in a surprisingly lowly position for someone who was once Chancellor of the Exchequer). That move has undercut all attempts to replace UKIP with the Conservative Party as the eurosceptics' preferred choice.
So, here is what I suggest. I shall not call on you to stick with subjects you deal with so supremely well – the public sector in this country, its bloated officials and the waste that goes with it. After all, if you do that, you may avoid Scylla but will hit Charybdis. It will be pointed out to you that a good deal of the expense you talk about is imposed on local councils by the EU and cannot be avoided. That, of course, does not apply to the fat-cat salaries and those non-jobs you write about.
My idea is that you continue the sterling work you have been doing on the public sector. Keep drumming it into people's minds that it is bloated, wasteful and useless; that its employees do not do the work out of the goodness of their hearts but get high salaries and excellent perks at our expense; that high taxes is not the way forward and it is possible to cut them and to cut the bureaucracy that stifles us at the same time.
However, may I humbly suggest that when you get to "European matters" you stop pretending that you own the subject? Look around you. A good deal of work has been done and is being done. Use it and acknowledge it. That is the way forward. We are all happy to answer questions and to give information. But none of us like being told that we do not exist and have never existed.
Deal?
COMMENT THREADA few inches of global warming …
… and the whole country comes to a standstill. According to The Daily Telegraph, more than six million people have been forced to stay at home. Thousands of airline passengers have been stranded after almost 1ft of snow fell in some parts. And a second mass of freezing clouds moving up from France is expected to bring further wintry storms.
Parts of Northumberland and North Yorkshire could be left with 16 ins of snow by Tuesday while the rest of the country will have up to 1ft. Snow is forecast across the country until Friday, although the flurries will become less severe and turn to sleet as the week draws to a close.
With at least 2,000 schools closed and rail, road and air transport paralysed the disruption is expected to cost the economy £1.2 billion. Airlines alone could face a £10 million bill from cancelled flights.
Strangely, there is not a single mention of global warming. Yet, as I recall, when we had a cold, wet summer, the hacks were all over it, retailing claims that "European monsoon may become an increasingly noticeable summer event in future years because of global warming."
And the reason for "European snowstorms" is?
COMMENT THREADWe can't have "perceptions"
Breaking a recent vow never to listen to BBC radio, I took the time out to enjoy reporters, commentators and sundry others twittering on about the foreign workers' dispute, noting how completely out of their depth they all were, especially the MPPs, who seemed to have little idea of what they were talking about (so what else is new?).
After all these years of ignoring the EU, pretending it wasn't happening, and now it is leaping up and biting them on their hairy a***s, and they don't know what to make of it. Thus we get Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary – and former union leader – blathering on about the need for "fresh directives" in order to make it clear that British workers cannot be undercut on their own turf.
This is backed by the Unions who also want "a new EU directive" to overturn the Viking and Laval un Partner cases, clearly failing to understand that all the ECJ was doing was clarifying that which has been in the Treaty of Rome since 1957.
What these poor darlings actually want, therefore, is not so much a new directive as a new treaty – which, of course, they cannot have. Thus, one suspects they are thrashing around looking for a way our of an intractable problem, having to confront that looming elephant, which is getting more visible by the day.
Also great fun is watching the great europhiliac Peter Mandelson squiriming, trying to explain to us that its "alright chaps" – you can go and get jobs in Italy. "Let them eat cake", doesn't even begin to measure up to that piece ofhauteur.
Paul Kenny, leader of the GMB was less than impressed, spitting with rage, declaring that, "For Mandelson to come out with the Norman Tebbit line to get on your bike and go to Brussels is outrageous."
Then we have the Lord M telling us that us that there is "no problem" with EU rules as Total – owners of the Lindsey oil refinery – have provided "full reassurance" and dispelled the "perception" that Britons had been discriminated against. Planet, which, on?
The revered Gordon isn't having an easy time of it either. Saddled with his fatuous slogan, "British Wogs for British Dogs" … no, sorry that was the BNP slogan – "British jobs for British workers," he is now telling these ardent jobseekers, looking for rapidly vanishing stock of British jobs, that these "wildcat strikes" are "not defensible". They were "not the right thing to do," says the man who has already given most of his job to foreign workers, yet still gets pay increases.
There is even more merriment to be had from the Lib-Dums warning that challenging EU labour laws would be a "huge, self-defeating step too far", as they desperately seek to prevent their darling EU gurgling down the plug hole as British workers finally get wise to the joys of being socommunautaire. The blue flag is about to follow the same route as the red flag, in that deliciously irreverent song.
Needless to say, pretend eurosceptic "two jobs Willy" Hague, wants it both ways. The Conservatives "strongly support" the free movement of Labour within the EU – presumably he is not talking about the Labour Party, as he is more interested in one-way movement there. "In Europe and screwed by Europe", wasn't it?
Meanwhile, when they've finished devising new and interesting things to do with blue flags,today up to 1,000 construction workers at Sellafield may be telling Mr Brown what he can do with his slogans, and thinking up some of their own. Some might even offer suggestions for doing new and interesting things with all sorts of objects. Why stop at flags?
However, they might be beaten by the rush of global warming we have been having lately, which might actually stop them getting to work in order to stop working.
The last word, however, must go to Sadiq Khan, the Kommunities Minister, who is telling us: "What we cannot have is the perception that foreign companies are abusing the rules of the EU to penalise British workers who have the skills to do the job."
We most certainly cannot have "perceptions". Whatever next?
COMMENT THREADSunday, February 01, 2009
A promise of peace
Having spent the last three months immersed in writing up an account of the Iraqi occupation in the British sector, from May 2003 to date, the "great work" is finished all bar the all-important processes of editing, cleaning up and revision. Writing 90,000 words, give or take, has been an interesting experience, and highly educative. If anything, I am appalled at my own ignorance when I embarked on the project.
The story, though, is not quite at an end. British troops cease operations in May and must be out of the country by the end of July, barring 400 or so who will continue training and mentoring duties.
Already, the British government and the military are re-writing history to make out that the occupation was a tremendous success, achieving everything they set out to achieve. Everything went to plan, especially if – as Montgomery was often accused of doing – you re-write that plan after then event and forget what you said at the time.
Aside from the posturing of the British, great events are taking place with the regional elections completed yesterday and the count underway. Little of what is at stake, however, emerges in the British media, and one must look elsewhere for a hint of what is important.
If you know what you are looking for, The Washington Post provides that hint. Buried in its syndicated report, you find a suggestion that the election was "in part" a referendum on two of Iraq's influential personalities – Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
While al-Maliki hopes to deepen his growing influence through election victories by his loyalists, we are told, al-Sadr is hoping to reverse his waning political clout by supporting independent candidates.
That indeed is the issue. More than anything, it was Sadr's Mahdi Army which cast is reign of terror over Basra and the south, latterly displacing the Fadhila and Badr militias, to become the major threat to peace and stability, not only in the south, but in the whole of Iraq. The hope is that Sadr is a busted flush, and there is every reason to think that this is the case.
In that context, you will find numerous references to last year's "Charge of the Knights" operation, masterminded by Maliki, when the grip of the Mahdi Army was broken in Basra. However, while Muqtada was faced down, he was not defeated. In 2004, in the first Mahdi Army uprisings, his attacks were seen off and his followers sustained heavy losses. They were to gather strength and return in greater force.
This time, however, it is different. Earlier, Sadr's armoury and weapons distribution centre in Maysan, with its hub in al Amarah, was theoretically under British control but, in fact, under the control of the Mahdi Army, left largely undisturbed. As long as this centre remained undisturbed, Muqtada had stocks of weapons, and a cadre of fighters on which he could rely.
What makes the current so different is that, now, al Amarah has been neutralised. And, while "Charge of the Nights" was well-reported, in which the media consistently called it wrong, the follow-up operation, barely reported, was far more significant, a comprehensive and humiliating defeat for Muqtada.
As far as we can ascertain, the operation actually started last May, with US Air Force F-16s and Navy F-18 Hornets and Super Hornet bombers performing "shows of force" and precision bombing through May and into June. At one stage, an RAF Tornado joined the fray. More airpower, it seemed, was committed to this stage of the operation than the British had enjoyed throughout their whole tenure in Maysan.
As this phase of the operation started, on or around 10 May, Iraqi Special Operations Forces detained three suspected "Special Groups criminals" in al-Amarah. On 5 June, the unit mounted another raid into the city and captured one more such "criminal". As guests of the Iraqi Army, one can only speculate on the hospitality they were afforded – and the intelligence they offered in exchange. Nine days after the second raid, Iraqi and US troops were pouring into the area, ringing the city. Operation Basha'er as-Salaam – "Promise of Peace" – had begun. 
Backed by the Iraqi Army's 10th Division, special forces units, and elements of the US 10th Mountain and 1st Cavalry Divisions, amounting to some 22,000 troops in all, Maliki issued an ultimatum to the Mahdi Army. Repeating the successful strategy he had used in Basra, he gave them three days to lay down their arms – offering an amnesty to those who did. He also offered cash for any heavy weapons surrendered.
Maliki was, he said, giving the "outlaws and the members of the organised crime groups a last chance to review their stance." Iraqi and US soldiers then set up security checkpoints on the main roads, distributing leaflets urging people to stay indoors and remain calm.
To press home the point, US Navy Hornets made low passes over the city. Faced with such overwhelming force, Muqtada caved in, sending a delegation to the city to order his fighters to stand down. And it was a complete and utter capitulation. While Muqtada had made a fight of it in Basra, here he held his hands up and surrendered.
On 19 June, as the ultimatum expired, the troops moved in. Not a shot was fired. Militia fighters were seen throwing their weapons into the canals. One of the first targets for the troops was Mayor, who was arrested and detained, with about 16 other Sadr organisation officials.
Moving through the rest of the silent, fearful city, the Iraqi Army brought with them a secret weapon - over 10,000 halal ready-meals. Setting up distribution points in 12 neighbourhoods, they handed them out to all comers. By midday, the streets were thronging with life.
Following the troops were "community transportation improvement teams," ready to start a programme of city public works and highway sanitation. Before that, teams of national police, brought in with the troops, conducted house-to-house searches.
Far from meeting resistance, as had the British, they met with enthusiastic citizens telling them where to look. The results speak for themselves. Within days, the search teams had detained approximately 200 militia and collected more than 220 weapon caches, distributed in homes, businesses and public areas throughout the city.
The haul amounted to 2,262 mortar bombs, 1,034 mines, 971 artillery rounds, 749 rocket-propelled grenades, 598 rockets, 259 missile launchers, 176 IEDs, 259 grenades, 43 heavy machine-gun barrels, 141 EFPs and 22 missiles. After a month of occupation, the Iraqi Army had not seen a single gunfight, not one IED attack, nor received any indirect fire.
Operations continued in Maysan, occasionally meeting with sporadic resistance. It was quickly suppressed, and more caches were found. On 16 August, Iraqi and US troops discovered near al Amarah, 250 EFP plates, 125 107 mm rockets, two rocket launchers, 15 120 mm mortar bombs, one mortar tube and two sniper rifles.
By early October, Col Philip Battaglia, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, was confident that the resistance had been broken. The weapons haul now exceeded 8,000, including about 600 EFPs.
Said Battaglia, "al-Amarah ... was an area where these devices were assembled and then from there shipped to other parts of the country, into Baghdad and other places." He added, "We believe - we know - that we have interrupted the flow of these explosives."
Gen Petraeus then announced that the flow of weapons was drying up throughout Iraq. "We think we are literally running out of safe havens and strongholds and starting to run out of these areas where there were these very significant caches," he said.
With that, the scourge of al Amarah was ending. Muqtada's power base had been broken and, since then, there has been a return to near-normality in Maysan province.
The elections held on Saturday were the first opportunity for Iraqi citizens to pronounce a verdict on the operations. From the look of it, Maliki's supporters seem to have made string gains in the south, especially in Basra and also in Muqtada's earlier stronghold, Najaf.
Even then, a later report in the Washington Post is reading it wrong. That puts the contest as between the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Dawa Party and his allies, but the real battle is indeed between Muqtada and Maliki.
If the unofficial results are confirmed, then there is hope for the peoples of Iraq, and some optimism that this beleaguered country might at last see that "promise of peace". If it does, the turning point may have been Basra, but the enemy was defeated in al Amarah – without a shot being fired.
COMMENT THREAD
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Posts
