Oh joy!

Monday, May 11, 2009

Oh joy!

The Guardian is telling us that two BBC environment and science reporters are to lose their jobs as part of BBC News's latest round of cuts.

The BBC's team of science and environment correspondents includes Roger Harrabin (pictured), David Shukman, Christine McGourty, Pallab Ghosh, Sarah Mukherjee and Jeremy Cooke, all of whom report for various news programmes across BBC TV and radio services.

"The science and environment beat is a massive growth area and the reporting team are pre-eminent so many there are puzzled to say the very least about it," said a BBC source. "It needs expertise for these stories, a lot of preparation needs to be put in, and to lose two reporters in one go is madness."

The source also pointed at the "huge irony" of the decision given the "importance the organisation places on climate change as part of the news agenda".

The real irony is that anyone can seriously suggest that being a BBC environment correspondent requires any expertise. After all, how difficult can it be to regurgitate press releases from the WWF and Friends of the Earth?

COMMENT THREAD

Well, who does rule Britain?

This morning I set off earlier than usual (oh the sacrifices one makes in order to bring stories to this blog!) and attended a debate organized by Open Europe, under the very peculiar title of "Westminster or Brussels: Who rules Britain?". Hmm, I thought, that would be a short debate. The answer is Brussels; what was the question?

In fact, the event lasted for two hours with the question being raised only byBaroness Ludford, a long time labourer in the EU vineyard. She seemed a little put out by the title, having been under the impression that she had been asked to participate in a "constructive" discussion about how to improve the European Union and its regulatory powers rather than a "let's get out" one. Why she had not read the invitation or listened to the other speakers remains a mystery.

Let me add that from our point of view the Baroness Ludford is a terrific asset. She speaks for too long, trying to overpower her co-panellists; she does not address the question, preferring to explain how much more wonderful the Lib-Dims are than anybody else; she goes into personal attacks at the drop of a hat; she shows huge contempt for the electorate of any country; and, finally, she indulges in foam-flecked abuse and name-calling as soon as any criticism of any aspect of her beloved project is voiced.

The word "europhobe" appeared in every comment. At one point she predicted that by leaving the EPP, the Conservatives will find themselves in alliance with "europhobes, homophobes and climate-deniers". Climate-deniers? You mean there are people out there who deny there is a climate?

The question of who rules Britain had actually been decided before I got there (being about 15 minutes late but I had to get a cup of coffee to drink on the tube). Yes, as we all knew all along, it is Brussels and not in a particularly democratic or accountable fashion.

The real question was whether this was something to be approved of (Baroness Ludford), deeply disliked (David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Lord Trimble up to a point) or sort of approved of, if serious reforms are introduced (Gisela Stuart MP and Lord Trimble, again up to a point).

Open Europe's position as outlined by Lorraine Mullally, its Director, who chaired the meeting, seems to be somewhere around number 3.

The document that was supposed to be at the heart of the discussion is a recent report produced by Open Europe, "Out of Control - Measuring a decade of EU regulation". (I shall write more of it in another posting because it raises some important issues about the subject and about Open Europe itself.)

It was David Heathcoat-Amory who made the crucial point about the report and the discussion that was supposed to be around it. The only way we can really understand what has been happening in the regulatory field is by understanding that there has been an unspoken and unnoted constitutional revolution in Britain, which has not come about through war or revolutionary settlement but has taken place, nonetheless. (There was a lady in the audience who described herself as a political outsider, though a member of the Labour Party, speaking, rather arrogantly in my opinion, on behalf of the fifty million people out there. She had clearly not been listening to a word Mr Heathcoat-Amory had said though she assured us all that she agreed with him, as, according to her, it was the Lisbon Treaty that was going to make the constitutional change by introducing European legislative supremacy. One can only hope that some of those fifty million she was representing knew better than she did.)

The point, made by Mr Heathcoat-Amory is crucial - without anyone noticing it, our parliamentary system has been destroyed with power handed over to other institutions that neither the parliamentarians nor the people of this country can control, through treaties and ECJ decisions.

As to what the Conservatives are going to do about it, he was a little more vague. One cannot help feeling sorry for Mr Heathcoat-Amory. He would clearly like to do what Lord Pearson of Rannoch always advocates: tear up the Treaty of Rome and start again. His plan for a European agreement would be so loose and so simple that there would not be the slightest difficulty about Turkey joining. But he is held back by the Conservative Party, which may or may not start doing something about the European mess if it is the one to form the government after the next election in 2010 (which seems very likely at the moment).

Mr Heathcoat-Amory is a Conservative through and through, the sort of man we need in the House of Commons. It would be a tragedy for the House, for the Conservative Party and for all of us if he felt that he could not carry on because he could not push the leadership into the direction of some action rather than just empty talk.

Gisela Stuart has learnt a great deal in her dealings with the EU and has now come up with three ideas of absolutely essential reform if the EU is to survive and to flourish as a democratic, accountable entity: 1.) the permanent UK Representative should be answerable to the House of Commons; 2.) a new Commission should mean that all previous legislative proposals should die as they do in the Westminster Parliament at the end of a session and, certainly after an election; 3.) all new EU legislation should be forced to explain in a preamble why this particular piece of business cannot be done at a national level.

Sounds excellent but none of it is ever going to be enacted, not least because treaty changes are needed for at least one, possibly two of those suggestions. In any case, they are contrary to the ethos of the European Union and its legislation, which can be summed up as governance through management not through politics.

Ms Stuart also managed to criticize Baroness Ludford in a very charming fashion by responding to those rantings about "europhobes" with a very good point. One can criticize the British government without being told that one is anti-democratic; why cannot one criticize aspects of the European Union, such as the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty without somebody screeching abuse at one, labelling the speaker a "europhobe" and insisting that they just want to pull out and, probably, go to war with other countries? Of course, as I said above, the more Baroness Ludford and her ilk behave like that, the more people will say that, maybe, after all, they do want to pull out as there seems to be no possibility of ordinary democratic politics within the EU.

Ms Stuart made another good point in response to somebody in the audience who will be standing as a Libertas candidate in the European elections. Pan-European polity (I think he meant political parties) is all very well, but the logic of that would mean a completely federal system (I think she meant a single state and not necessarily a federal one) with a single tax system and a single economic policy. How else could it work? A very good point that Libertas has not so far addressed.

Lord Trimble made various comments (never let it be said that this blog discriminates in any way). He, too, criticized Baroness Ludford, explaining to her that the attitude she and her party take is not sensible from their point of view as it is likely to drive those who believe in reform into the withdrawalist camp. He added further that he was very unhappy with power leeching away from the elected Parliament to an unelected bureaucratic entity, that the Irish economic situation has been made considerably worse by the country's membership of the euro, and that the future was not "European" but global. There is hope for the man yet.

COMMENT THREAD

Taking it seriously

One is inclined to hurl some incredibly rude remarks in the direction of Ilana Bet-El, writing inThe Guardian today. "There is one issue upon which all Europeans, from all political hues, would probably agree," she tells us. "There is a democratic deficit in the EU."

Point one: there is no such thing as a "European" darling, not in the sense that you mean it. Point two: there is no "democratic deficit". That is false framing, suggesting that there is some defect that can be remedied. On the contrary, the EU is fundamantally anti-democratic, by design. As a democracy it could not function.

However, having thus falsely framed the argument, la Bet-El then compounds the offence, telling us that, "With some reservations by Eurosceptics on the one hand and EU fanatics on the other, most people would probably also agree that the elections to the European parliament are currently the only way of addressing the deficit."

Point one: most "Eurosceptics" would conclude that that the best way of remedying the "deficit" is with a thermo-nuclear device, detonated 10,000ft above Brussels. As is so often the case with the type, Bet-El labours under the illusion that, because MEPs are elected, that is in some way "democratic". She confuses form with substance.

In the fog that passes for the brain of la Bet-El, she thus believes that the parliamentary elections "offer citizens an opportunity to give a direct opinion upon the institution itself and the union in general." On that basis, she opines that "it is time to take the upcoming June elections seriously."

Of course, some "citizens" sent the union a message, in the French, Dutch and Irish referendums. And a fat lot of good that did. Sending a bunch of low-grade nonentities to join the gravy train in Brussels delivers precisely what message?

Interestingly, in 2004 at about this time, the euro-election campaign was set alight by the emergence of Kilroy-Silk as a candidate. Currently, with the political claque indulging in a feeding frenzy over MPs' expenses and The Daily Telegraph preening itself in an orgy of self-congratulation, the euro-election campaign is invisible. It promises to turn into the non-event of the Century.

As for the effect on "democracy", after the batch of publicity on the Tory shadow cabinet, Gerald Warner articulates the thoughts of many:

So, if you are thinking "Gosh! I can't wait until the Tories come in and replace sleazy Labour," you have failed a very basic intelligence test. If you imagine voting for any of the established parties at Westminster will achieve anything other than your further impoverishment, exploitation, oppression, and being treated with contempt by the fraudsters who despise your gullibility, you deserve everything that will subsequently happen to you. Vote Tory? In your dreams, Dave.

We are far from alone in believing that a major beneficiary of this furore will be the BNP. Taking la Bet-El at face value, though, I cannot think of a better way of giving "a direct opinion upon the institution itself and the union in general," than sending nationalists to sit in the heart of darkness.

You could even say that the BNP and the EU deserve each other.

COMMENT THREAD