Saturday 7 January 2012

Confusing the issues - by Richard... Saturday, January 07, 2012


In a bid to preserve The Boy's new-found credentials as a "eurosceptic", the modern-day successor to the European Movement has been hard at work. This is Open Europe, which has managed to place material with three newspapers, predictably the Daily Mail, the Failygraph and the Financial Times.

The headline issue, as presented by The European Movement Open Europe, is an attempt by the "colleagues" to include single market and other measures in the latest draft of the intergovernmental treaty, which will require the use of EU institutions, building on an initiativestarted by Cameron himself.

In fact, there is very little difference between this latest version and the first draft, which we reported on 17 December, then remarking that it was as close to being an EU treaty as it could be, without actually being one.

In effect, this puts two fingers up to Cameron, and makes a complete mockery of any pretensions that he might be "standing up for Britain" and preventing the "colleagues" from taking their intended action.

Hence, with the safe distance of a month – long enough for memories to have blurred - The European Movement Open Europe is setting up The Boy as the champion in what it is positioning as a second round of the fight.

Thus, we are seeing the focus being carefully shifted to questions as to whether The Boy will "try to block the use of the EU institutions in implementing and enforcing the fiscal pact", or (so we are told), whether he will "merely insist on the EU institutions not being used for single market issues.

Nothing of that latter statement actually makes sense, and there is no mention of the single market in the draft treaty, but the confusion introduced serves to preserve the myth of the veto and keep attention away from the fact that nothing much has changed since the European Council meeting in December.

One thing newly added to the draft treaty though is a passage which firms up on the declared intentof the "colleagues" to incorporate the new treaty provisions "into the treaties of the Union as soon as possible". A time scale of five years from the entry into force of the treaty has now been specified.

Cleverly, having not covered the original statement in any detail, and the first draft of the treaty at all, The European Movement Open Europe can present this to its media clients as something new and different, setting The Boy up as the "hero of the veto", protecting his turf.

Thus does the British perception of EU politics deteriorate into utter fantasy, with the non-existent veto now being "protected" in a contest which only exist in the imaginations of the europlastics, determined to keep the withdrawal agenda out of the headlines.

Nevertheless, by confusing the issues, Cameron's role as defender has been defined, as he girds his loins for battles to come. And so does the fantasy continue.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Mother nature on our side - by Richard... Friday, January 06, 2012


Following the story we did on the Super Tucano three days ago, I am reminded of just how long ago it was that when we were pursuing the issue in parliament. Notably, it got a mention on 20 April 2009 when Ann Winterton raised it in a procurement debate. She said:
I have consistently argued that we should use aircraft such as the Super Tucano two-seater light attack aircraft … It could assist in the creation of an Afghan air force. If such a force is not founded and developed, the international military force will be required to continue to give air cover virtually for ever. It is interesting to note that the United States has recently leased two such aircraft and they will be used in Afghanistan. It will also be interesting to see whether those aircraft will be procured directly when they have proved to be successful.
The ultimate logic, which we explored on the Defence of the Realm blog, was that we should have been concentrating on building up the Afghan national capability, rather than have the RAF playing with their (extremely expensive) toys.

That, effectively, is what the Americans are at last attempting to do, which suggests that our arguments had some merit. But, even if we are completely right, that is not enough. And this is a lesson that carries right through government. Custodians of public money generally tend to pursue their own interests, rather that what is right.

As yet, we have not worked out any way of changing that. Whether it is getting the RAF to buy Tucano bombers, trying to stop the government supporting useless wind turbines, or convincing it to pull us out of the EU, might rather than right prevails.

This can be rather depressing. It would be nice to think that it is possible to expend energy to effect, and that ultimately our efforts can succeed. Without being pessimistic, the record is not good enough, and we have to change that. But at least it is not all bad news. Mother nature is helping out. And with her on our side, we cannot lose.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Who needs billionaires? - by Richard...


Reuters has George Soros (above) telling us all that the collapse of the euro and break-up of the European Union "would have catastrophic consequences for the global financial system".

His quote was actually in the Business Line newspaper, delivered while he was in the south Indian city of Hyderabad. "Today", he says, "the euro is potentially endangering the political cohesion of the European Union".

He adds: "If the common currency were to break down, it will lead to the break up of the European Union itself. And this will be catastrophic not only for Europe but also for the global financial system".

Soros thinks that the euro crsis is "more serious and more threatening than the crash of 2008". In his view, some euro countries may have to take more austerity measures because of the imbalances between the "creditor and the debtor countries".

"Unfortunately, they haven't yet solved the acute financial crisis and that is causing the situation to deteriorate...and (it) is not at all clear it will have a solution," he concludes.

Thus do we see once again the evidence that being a billionaire doesn't necessarily make you right. He may have got lucky on the ERM, but austerity measures are not the answer. The break-up of the single currency is. And it most certainly will cause problems … but not breaking up will be even worse.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The eurozone isn't working - by Richard...


Unemployment in the eurozone has soared to a record 16.4 million people, up 587,000 on the same month in 2010. This is via The Guardian, which is recording a level of unemployment which represents almost the entire population of Holland.

Predictably, Greece is one of the countries worst hit, with 18.8 percent of its workforce registered as unemployed, up from 13.3 percent the same time last year. Spain, though, now has the highest unemployment rate in Europe, at 22.9 percent.

Overall, the unemployment rate has risen only slightly over the past 12 months, to 10.3 percent, but the big difference is in expectation. Fewer in the PIIGS now are under any illusions that work is going to come their way in a hurry.

Also predictable is the wide divergences within the eurozone. Germany actually delivered a slight fall in unemployment (0.1 percent), bringing in a mere 5.5 percent, less than a quarter enjoyed by the Greeks and its lowest level since reunification.

By way of contrast though, the United States is claiming to have added 200,000 jobs to its economy in December, bringing its notional unemployment down to 8.5 percent. Although some may dispute the figures (it may be a lot higher), it still puts the "colleagues" to shame.

Gone now are the pretensions of matching the economic power of the US. It is survival time.




Cameron pledge over EU institutions

(UKPA) – 1 day ago

David Cameron has pledged to do "everything possible" to stop signatories of a new treaty from using the EU's institutions to do their business behind the UK's back.

The Prime Minister admitted there were "legal difficulties" but insisted any new treaty should be about fiscal union and not the single market.

Institutions such as the European Commission and European Court of Justice should not be used to carry out the work of those who sign a new treaty, he added. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he had met German Chancellor Angela Merkel three weeks before the summit to set out the UK's position, which had been agreed "across Government".

Mr Cameron said: "One of the strengths of there not being a treaty within the European Union is that the new thing, whatever it is, can't do things that are the property of the European Union.

"They shouldn't be doing things that are about the single market or about competitiveness, and we will be very clear that when it comes to that you cannot use the European institutions for those things because that would be wrong.

"You can't have a treaty outside the European Union that starts doing what should be done within the European Union and that goes back to the issue of safeguards." He added: "Let me be very clear that they shouldn't do things outside the European Union that are the property of the European Union."

Explaining why the UK is in the organisation, he said: "We are there because we are a trading nation and we want access to the single market and a full say about the rules of the single market, and what we can't have is the single market being discussed outside of the European Union and we will do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen."

Mr Cameron insisted the safeguards the UK sought last month were "moderate, reasonable and relevant", and had been talked through with Ms Merkel. But he said the French and German proposals were handed over "very late in the day".

Pressed on what safeguards he had secured for the UK, Mr Cameron said: "What I stopped was that if you have a treaty within the framework of the European Union that didn't have safeguards on the single market and on financial services, Britain would have been in a worse position.

"I am not making some great claim to have achieved a safeguard but what I did do was stop a treaty without safeguards. Is that clear enough?"

Related articles

Posted by Britannia Radio at 17:19