Germans do not favour political union Wednesday 4 July 2012 A survey published by the magazine Stern, with details online via here, has 74 percent of the 1,004 Germans polled against the idea of a United States of Europe. Only 22 percent support the idea of abandoning the nation state. The poll, carried out by the Forsa organisation, also has 63 percent against the idea of an elected EU president, with only 33 percent in favour, and 59 percent oppose the transfer of further financial powers from the Bundesbank to EU institutions. Only 36 percent are in favour. As to eurobonds, these also got a huge thumbs-down, with 73 percent against, as opposed to a mere 17 percent supporting the idea. Yet, despite all this, 54 percent of Germans still think that introducing the euro was the right thing to do. And, looking to the future, 69 percent of those polled agreed that there should be a referendum of there is any further transfer of sovereignty to Brussels. This conveys a much stronger message than the a poll published this weekend by Welt am Sonntag. That had 43 percent of respondents supporting a United States of Europe, with 51 percent speaking out against further political and economic integration. Similar proportions were found in relation to giving Brussels more financial powers – with 43 percent for and 52 percent against. The Welt survey might have made a referendum look winnable to Merkel, and may have contributed to her new determination to press ahead with a treaty. If that was the case, this current poll is a setback, perhaps indicating a hardening of opinion against the project. Meanwhile, back in the UK, the europhile New Statesman asserts that the failure of politicians in the UK on all sides to make the "positive case for Europe" is one of the reasons why the debate about a referendum has now reached fever pitch. An "in/out" referendum, it claims, can be won, but "politicians who favour remaining in and pushing back the UKIP tide must start to make the positive case". However, this may be a tad optimistic, to put it mildly. And if sentiment is hardening in Germany, where support for "Europe" is traditionally strong, it seems unlikely that the British public will soften its views. The europhiles are in for a harder fight than they are letting on. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/07/2012 |
They NEVER give up Wednesday 4 July 2012  Initially, it was supposed to be voluntary, a system technically known as "Automated Crash Notification". It relies on sensors in a car which detect an impact and other events, and automatically sends a call to the emergency services, using GPS data to determine the location of the incident. Although relatively successful as a private sector venture in the United States, where the system is marketed as OnStar, the EU wanted to turn it into a state-run European system. As such, there were no takers, not least because the system is expensive and difficult to manage on an EU level. And, for the individual, there are serious drawbacks. The system can also be easily converted to form the basis of a road charging system, and to facilitate state surveillance of private vehicle movements, remote speed control and automatic road law enforcement. Needless to say, freedom of choice on the part of member states and "European citizens" is not acceptable to the EU parliament. Despite the opposition of some Brit MPs, its Transport Committeecalled for compulsory adoption by 2015. That was in June and now the full parliament has backed compulsion, clearing the way for the commission to table a legislative proposal by the end of the year. Therein is demonstrated one of the very best reasons why we must get out of the EU. Such decisions should not be made by the EU, especially in such contentious areas in which private sector involvement is almost certainly better, not least in avoiding statist system creep. The key lesson, though, is that the EU never gives up. Once an idea is in the system, the "colleagues" never take no for an answer. They will keep coming back again and again and again until they get what they want. That is the way integration works, and the only way to stop it is to get out. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/07/2012 |
It is easy to mock Clegg – but we are the victims Wednesday 4 July 2012  Lamenting his "tough job", he told his audience: "It feels like I've had a lobotomy", saying that working in government had left him feeling "lobotomised" and that the "frenetic" pace of the job meant he had no time to think. It is very easy to mock here and, in the case of Clegg, this is almost mandatory, but that doesn't stop the man having a point. Many times, I have observed the same, noting, for instance, back in July 2008 that the "main trouble with our MPs is the frenetic lifestyle they lead in their artificial bubble at Westminster. It does not give them time to think". More recently, I wrote of a survey of the French Parliament, where MPs described their lives as forever being "head down". In interviews, they complained of a sense of "asphyxia" or "loss of meaning". Many cited the inability to think, or take a step back. Amid the mockery that Clegg has engendered, Tory MP Zac Goldsmith agrees with his statements, adding that it was not just ministers who feel like they have lost part of their brain. Goldsmith said backbench MPs were also "lobotomised in Parliament", as they rarely hold government to account for fear of missing out on promotions. Zac doesn't quite seems to have got the point, but then, as former editor of the loss-makingEcologist, he could never be accused of thinking clearly, even without the pressure of being an MP. That apart, this issue does matter. Back in 2009, I wrote a ruminative piece on the effects on policy when MPs do not think clearly. Since then, if anything, the situation has got worse and, if some of the problems are of the MPs' own making, many of them reflect the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle and the frenetic pace of modern life. Just thinking of one comparison, in 1940 the London Blitz started on Saturday 7th September, yet it was not until 11 September that Churchill, having spent days touring the devastated areas and consulting with the authorities and colleagues, finally addressed the nation about it in a radio broadcast. It is inconceivable that the business of government could now be conducted at such a leisurely pace, but we are still served by institutions and conventions that owe their origins to those times, and long before. It seems to me that someone needs to do some thinking about the way our style of government impacts on human physiology and intellectual capabilities, for we are the true victims of the "lobotomies" of which Clegg and others complain. The trouble is that those people best placed to do the thinking are those least able to do so, which means we have a self-perpetuating train-crash. But at least we are closer to understanding why the performance of governments and legislatures is so poor. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/07/2012 |
Referendum: no longer under control Wednesday 4 July 2012  When a subject generates high levels of media traffic, the closed loop effect starts to take over. The politicians may have started the meme running, but the media responds, the politicians react, media then reacts to that, and so on and on. There then comes a point when story develops a life of its own and it continues running without much new input. Generally, these sorts of stories then tend to keep running until the issue is resolved, one way or another, and there is some sort of closure. So far, we are in the high traffic phase, where every Tom, Dick and Crawford piles in, with derivative "noise" which adds very little to the sum of human wisdom, other than Crawford, however, wishes to make a point: "Now is not the time to commit to an EU referendum", he says. "We don't know what we want". What is interesting is that the egregious Peter Mandelson who, a mere two months ago was calling for a referendum, is saying the same thing. He has decided that, although he still wants one, he doesn't want it just yet. Yet it is impossible to disagree with the man when he suggests that it is not a good idea to hold a referendum as a short-term expedient to keep the lid on the anti-EU hardliners on the Tory backbenches and as a panicky response to the rise of UKIP. To be even-handed, he also suggests that it is not a good idea for Labour to attempt to try to drive a wedge in the Tory party. This would not be in the national interest and "is only a way of managing — or exacerbating — the intolerable pressures inside the Conservative Party". It would turn an issue of genuine principle into one of short-term politics. Ever the optimist, Mandelson then postulates that, should the eurozone repair itself and become "the core of a much more politically integrated Europe", Britain will have to make a "profound choice" about its own future in Europe. Says the former commissioner, staying outside this "federal Europe" would have "potentially far-reaching consequences for our country: in trade, in governance, in global influence. We would have to make the decision to exclude or include ourselves only after a serious national debate". As to a referendum, therefore, it is hard to see, he says, how else Britain could make such a huge step with the necessary legitimacy. But this is not a case for a referendum tomorrow, but five to ten years from now, when the future direction of the EU is clear, and when we have a genuine choice to make. This is a man who does not seem to be up to speed, considering that he is a former commissioner. The kind of referendum he is considering might be upon us sooner than he imagines. But what is really interesting here is that Mandelson, after being so keen, so recently, on a referendum, really does not want one. No one envies David Cameron's position, he says, but he should not embark on the same road taken by Hague, fighting a general election on EU issues. Cameron should concentrate on digging his government out of its omnishambles and rediscover the sense of direction and competence he demonstrated at the beginning of his term. He cannot afford any further vote-losing distractions, European or otherwise. So, what has changed that has caused the man to change his mind so dramatically? What does he know that we don't? Or what doesn't he know that we do? Finding clues is not easy, although it is interesting to see that Spiegel has also caught the referendum bug, publishing a long piece with the contentious title: "Better Off Outside?" The magazine concludes of Britain that "exit seems more likely than ever", stating that many leading British politicians from all sides of the spectrum now believe that a referendum on EU membership is unavoidable. It is entirely possible, it says, that the British could indeed vote in favour of leaving the EU. But there are echoes of the Mandelson theme, with us being told that Cameron "hopes to postpone the referendum issue for a few years". A vote only makes sense when it is clear what is being voted on, he says: but that is impossible to predict, given the current developments in the eurozone. So it is that we are seeing an increasingly number of people who really do not want a referendum any time soon. All the same, right up to press, Cameron does not seem to know what he is letting himself in for. To the Commons Liaison Committee yesterday, he insisted: "If the 17 countries of the eurozone bring about a banking union for themselves - which I frankly think they need to do in a single currency - if they do that at the level of the 17 and we can get proper safeguards in place, then that wouldn't be a fundamental change for us". "So", he adds, "I don't think that would in and of itself trigger a massive change for us in the EU". Here, there, is another man who either does not know what is going on, or chooses not to reveal what he knows. Most close observers are fully aware that a banking union requires fiscal union which requires political union. If Cameron does know this, he is treating his audience with contempt. If he does not know, he is dangerously ill-informed. The truth, though – as the political claque on the Telegraph is beginning to realise – is that Cameron's EU policy is "a puny vessel at the mercy of a tempest". Slowly but relentlessly, he is being driven towards the referendum commitment he would rather avoid. He has no choice in the matter. And that is why this issue is going to run and run. Many of the commentators, who know little of the issues, can smell the fear. They are attracted to it as a moth is to a flame. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/07/2012 |
The Great Euro Swindle Tuesday 3 July 2012  The euro crisis, we are told, is a story of fraud and deception - all members, even the Germans, are implicated. According to our informant, it shows that Bundesbank (Tietmeyer, Issing) warned Kohl and Waigel that Italy and Belgium were not in compliance with the rules of EMU. Also Regling as director general in the EU commission knew about this. There were interviews with those bitter old men. When Greek wanted to join the euro, the analysts Bundesbank could see that the data were apparently falsified. One member of the Bundesbank board went public but, as a result, got a severe dressing down from Hans Eichel. Then Eichel and Schröder decided that Germany also would be in non compliance with the rules. Senior officials in Bundesbank and the leading politicians thus deliberately told lies to the population, who now must foot the bill. A programme of this nature should have been dynamite in the German political debate, except for the fact that it was broadcast late, between 22.45-23.30 local time. Today's newspapers have not (so far) commented on programme. If there are any public-spirited German speakers out there, we could really use a translation of the key parts, to give this wider circulation, not least to make the contrast with Peston's weak documentary. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/07/2012 |
It's started – get rid of the fudge Tuesday 3 July 2012  With referendum fever rampant, the Independent is already up and running with arguments for staying in the EU, offered by Ben Chu. The points made are all very predictable, and have been made before to the point of tedium. We can counter them with ease. However, this is not the ground on which the battle will be fought. As the situation develops, the chances are that we will have to face not one but two referendums. Addressing the scenario posed in my earlier piece, we face the prospect of a treaty referendum some time in 2015, close to or coinciding with the general election – should the EU survive that long. The chances are that this will not be an in/out referendum, but one in which asks whether we approve a new treaty which gives considerably more power to the EU. Like as not, the UK will have negotiated multiple opt-outs, and the pressure will be on to approve the treaty on the basis that refusal would crash the euro. However, in that scenario, an affirmative would put the UK in the second tier of a two-tier EU which had been transformed into a United States of Europe, centred around remaining eurozone countries. Thus, there must be linkage between a "yes" vote to the treaty and an in/out poll, the former conditional on being given the latter. Putting clothes on this, what we might see is Cameron confronting us with a treaty referendumbefore the general election, with him campaigning for a "yes" vote on the promise of an in/out referendum after the election. This, in effect, was what Cameron was saying in the Commons yesterday. The status quo in Europe was "unacceptable", he said, adding: "I believe we should show strategic and tactical patience in this". What he wanted to see was "a fresh settlement that we seek fresh consent for". Then came the crux of the matter: "The right time to determine questions about referendums and the rest of it is after we have that fresh settlement. That is what we should do". This scenario would pus Labour and the Lib-Dems on the spot, and possibly give the Conservatives the breakthrough differentiation that they needed to win. It would also blow UKIP out of the water. Then, and only then, would come the job of fighting the real referendum but, in the new environment, that would be eminently winnable – providing the "outers" get their act together, and start thinking through their campaign now. In the first instance, I would propose we lose the titles eurosceptic and eurorealist – and anything similar. I suggest we go for "outer", as opposed to "inner", making the battle lines clear. That is where Philip Johnston tries to go this morning, and he is partially right. There's only one question, he says, "Are we in or out? ". But then he adds, "Any effort to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU is just a smokescreen". There, I differ slightly, and this assertion cannot be allowed to take hold as it stands. De facto and de jure, withdrawal involves negotiation, and the proposed settlement between the EU and UK must define the battleground. Most if not all the points raised by Ben Chu can be resolved in exit negotiations, under Article 50. We need to get past the idea that leaving is "sudden death". However, Johnston is completely right about one thing. Any attempt to sell renegotiation before we leave would be a fraud. We need to get rid of the fudge. Forget renegotiation. The issue to decide is indeed in or out. Then, and only then, do we start talking with the "colleagues". COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/07/2012 |
Posts
