EU politics: it's Friday
Monday 14 January 2013
 It says something of the lack of awareness that Cameron chose this date for his big speech, a timing which has been seen as something of a snub to the "colleagues". Whatever the prime minister's advisors are being paid, it is far too much. However, this at least means that the Sunday papers will have something positive to write about, instead of their endless speculation – and Booker will be able to tell us what the speech really means. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU politics: the trouble with "Europe"
Monday 14 January 2013
 What it also reveals, though, is that Cameron, in common with many senior politicians and political journalists, is massively ill-informed about the nature of the European Union. He is thus hopelessly ill-informed on what is and is not possible to achieve in terms of negotiations. It is, therefore, useful to analyse some what we have been told, to see where exactly he has gone wrong. I will concentrate on three points: 1. Mr Cameron is "in favour of Britain's membership of the European Union" [because] "we're a trading nation" [and] " we need access to the Single Market". The essential error here is the belief [or implied assertion] that we need to be members of the European Union in order to partake in the Single Market. We do not. As has been rehearsed many times on this blog, membership of the EEA gives full access to the Single Market, without requiring membership of the EU. 2. "More than that", Mr Cameron believes that "we need a say in the rules of that market", and that also requires membership of the European Union. He goes on to say that it is [not] in our national interests to be in the Single Market like Norway: "just accept all the rules of the Single Market, pay for the privilege of being part of it and, as it were, be governed by fax rule". Norway is not governed by fax rule – to thus assert is fundamentally to misunderstand the way the rules of the single market are formulated. Here are a few guidelines: a. Much of the technical legislation comprising the Single Market is not formulated by the EU in the first place. In a global trading environment, increasingly it is agreed at a global level, either through trade bodies, standards organisations, or international bodies, many of them acting under the aegis of the United Nations. There are also the G-8 and the G-20 "summits" which can act as initiating bodies. b. Negotiations on rules invariably take many years. They are largely complete, and the rules formalised by the time they reach the EU institutions. By the time they are published as formal proposals, it is usually the case that it is too late to make any changes. Most of such rules are passed by the Council of Ministers without a debate and without a formal vote. In the rare instances where there is a vote, it is by QMV, where the UK is not able – on its own – to block a measure. c. Rules agreed at a higher international level are negotiated by individual countries, on an intergovernmental basis, many of which can be vetoed at that level. Thus, it is important to be involved at this stage, to shape the rules before they become formalised, at a stage when they can be blocked. d. The UK is a full member of most of the international bodies, in its own right. However, as a member of the EU, it often waives its right to be represented and to vote on measures. Instead, it accepts the "common position" agreed by EU members, and allows itself to be represented by the EU at international level. That is especially the case with the WTO, where the EU conducts negotiations on behalf of the EU. e. For Britain thus to step outside the "little Europe" framework of the EU is actually to restore its voice on the international stage, permitting it to express its own interests and take up its own negotiating positions. It can also initiate rules on its own account, without first having to seek EU approval, something which Norway is able to do and has done in recent times. 3. Mr Cameron believes that "powers should be able to flow backwards to nations as well as forwards to Brussels". One of the most sacred principles of the European Union is the monopoly of the right of proposal afforded to the Commission. By this means, no law can be removed from the acquis communautairewithout the agreement of the Commission, as law can only be repealed or amended by another law. Thus, lawmaking becomes a ratchet. Once power over an issue is assumed by the Commission, it is never returned. The reason for this is simple. The EU is not primarily (or at all) a trading body. It is a supranational organisation devoted to securing political union, with the chosen modus of using economic integration as a means of achieving political integration. Thus, the one-way flow of power is neither accidental nor negotiable. It is the very essence of the European Union. On this basis, the EU cannot and will not breach the principle of irreversibility. To do so would prejudice the very nature of the European Union, and comprise an existential threat. Negotiations aimed at achieving this end cannot possibly succeed. To achieve his aims, therefore, Mr Cameron must decouple trade from political union. This cannot be done from inside the European Union. He must invoke Article 50 in order to secure a new relationship whereby Britain is only involved in trade and allied issues, rejecting altogether political integration. To remain in the European Union is to remain committed to political union, where trade is secondary to this objective and is simply seen as a means of achieving political union. There are no half measures. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU Politics: Cameron on Today
Monday 14 January 2013
JH: I don't expect you to give me the detail of your speech – you're not making it until next Tuesday. But can we just establish a few principles, broad principles, the sort of thing you've been talking about for a very long time now. You are in favour, or not, of a referendum?
DC: First of all, let's stand back. I'm in favour of Britain's membership of the European Union. We're a trading nation, we need access to the Single Market but more than that we need a say in the rules of that market. So I believe Britain does have a European future. But, frankly, there is a debate going on in Britain about our relationship with Europe. A lot of people are not happy, including me, with some of the nature of that relationship and I think there's an opportunity to get that relationship right. Why? Well because Europe is changing because of the single currency, so there are opportunities for us to make changes and when we make those changes what I've called a new settlement, we should make sure there's full-hearted consent for that settlement. I'll be setting out exactly how in my speech but I'm not against referenda. I've never said … JH: Are you in favour? DC: Yeah, I think in some cases I think in some cases particularly … JH: In this case? DC: The principle I think should be this: if you are fundamentally changing the relationship between Britain and Europe then you should be having a referendum. JH: And you've just said that relationship is changing so it follows therefore there will be a referendum and the questions that follows from that is, will it be a in-out referendum? That's what people expect. DC: Of course. You have to wait for the speech for the full details, but obviously … JH: But you're not ruling that out, at this stage? DC: Obviously, I want to give people a proper choice. What I don't favour, and this is important – if we had an in-out referendum tomorrow or very shortly, I don't think that would be the right answer for the simple reason that I think we'd be giving people a false choice because right now I think there a lot of people who say, well I'd like to be in Europe but I am not happy with every aspect of the relationship so I want it to change. That is my view. So I think an in-out referendum today is a false choice. JH: And if it doesn’t change, are you prepared to go that bit further – rather a lot further and say, therefore, I think we should leave and we will have a referendum that gives the British people the choice of in or out? DC: Well as I've said, I'm in favour of our membership of the European Union and I'm also optimistic and confident that we can achieve changes in the European Union to make sure that Britain feels more comfortable with our relationship with Europe. I'm confident that we can do that. JH: Well an awful lot of people are not and George Osborne, the Chancellor, has said in order that we can remain in the Union, I quote, 'the Union must change'. DC: Yes, I think it does need to change … JH: Do you go along with that? DC: Yes, of course, and it is changing. There is an enormous thing happening in the European Union today which is the single currency, which we are not a member of and we're not going to join as long as I'm prime minister, is driving a process of change in Europe. Y'know, when I became Prime Minister two-and-a-half years ago, a lot of people said to me, well one thing you won't have to deal with is more treaty changes. They'e just had the Lisbon Treaty, you won't have any more treaty changes. Well we've had three proposed already in the last two-and-a-half years. So Europe is changing and the opportunity for us to lead those changes, and make changes and make changes that will make our relationship with Europe more comfortable I think are absolutely there, so I'm confident we can do that and, as I say, a fresh settlement, and then fresh consent for that settlement. I think that's the right approach and those who say this is very dangerous, you’re putting at risk the relationship with Europe, you're putting at risk our position with regard to business, I don't agree with that because the fact is that this debate is happening anyway. So we have a choice as politicians. Do you get out there, lead that debate, make the changes that will be right for Britain and I would argue, right for Europe, and then give people a choice about that, or do you kind of stick your head in the sand and hope the whole debate is going to go away? It isn't going to go away. There are two reasons for that. One is what's happened in terms of the single currency, which I've explained. And frankly the second reason is that the British public feel increasingly fed up that they've been left out of this debate. You know, they've been promised by both frankly governments and oppositions opportunities to vote in referenda or whatever, and then those opportunities have been taken away from them. I think the public are increasingly fed up with that, so we need both to take advantage of the change that's happening anyway in Europe and then also make sure the British public are properly and fully consulted. JH: You're striking a slightly different note from that which allegedly – you can confirm or deny it - you've struck in the past, at least in private, and that is that we'd be mad to leave Europe, that's what the, er … DC: Don't, don't believe everything you read in the newspaper … JH: So that's not true, you've never said that … ? [interruption] Hang on, let's be clear about that. Did you or did you not ever say we'd be mad to leave Europe? DC: I don't think its in our interests to leave the European Union. JH: Right, we'd be mad to leave it … DC: Look, I choose my words carefully. I don't, look … If you're saying to me would Britain sort of collapse if we left the European Union, no, of course not. You could choose a different path. The question is, what's in our national interests. And I've always been very clear. Its in our national interests as a trading nation to be in the Single Market but not like Norway – just accept all the rules of the Single Market, pay for the privilege of being part of it and, as it were, be governed by fax rule … JH: Its hard to see another alternative to that really … DC: Well let's look at our relationship now. We're not in the single currency and yet we're full members of the European Union. We're not in the Schengen no-borders agreement, which others are members of … [interruption] so the idea that everyone in Europe has to do everything at the same speed and the same way I think is wrong … JH: But you’re now saying that there are things going on of which we do not approve, even though we had notionally signed up to them. If they will not change things the way we want them to change, we will leave the club. That's effectively what you're saying, isn't it? DC: I don't put it like that … [interruption] What I think you're ignoring John is that Europe is changing. The single currency, because in order to have a working single currency you need elements of a banking union and a fiscal union, you need to make changes, and because not everyone in Europe is going to join the single currency and we certainly are not, Europe needs change. And as it needs change we can take advantage of that in terms of leading the debate ourselves, and I think we'll have allies on some of the things that we propose. The idea that powers should be able to flow backwards to nations as well as forwards to Brussels. Other leaders in Europe have been making that argument as well. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU politics: barking cats reprise
Monday 14 January 2013
 This is a man who, unfortunately, is displaying his lack of grounding in the history and nature of the European Union. It is necessarily "bossy" because it is our supreme government. And supreme governments "do" bossy because that's what supreme governments do. We are back, therefore, to the type of wishful thinking that spawns barking cats, the object of a commentary by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, and his wife Rose in a 1973 analysis of the reform of the US FDA. Referring to calls for reform of this institution, they offered the best explanation of why it cannot succeed and why, therefore, it cannot be real, an analysis which applies equally to the European Union. They argued: What would you think of someone who said, "I would like to have a cat provided it barked"? Yet your statement that you favour an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of governmental agencies once they are established.In other words, if organisations are set up in a certain way, their behaviour is pre-ordained and no more able to change than a cat can bark. What the history of the European Union tells us is that is was set up in a certain way, to do certain things. It embodies at its core the supranational Commission. All the other institutions were designed in such a way that they would either present no challenge to the supremacy of the Commission, or help it in its task of acquiring power. Given the structure and relationships of the institutions, as indeed do dogs bark and cats meow, so does the European Union necessarily act in the manner it does. That is what it was designed to do. The point is, of course, that if you did manage to change the European Union, making it conform more closely to your own desired specifications, it would no longer be the European Union. It would be something else, something completely different. It would no longer be a cat. It would become a dog. And that, the "colleagues" will never allow. They like their EU just as it is. Thus, when – as he has done on ITV's Daybreak television programme today - he calls for powers to "flow backwards as well as the other direction", Mr Cameron fails to understand the fundamental institutional biology. Power in the EU flows in only one direction because that is what it was designed to do. If you had a two-way flow, it would no longer be the European Union. Whether, as Mr Cameron says, he is "not happy" with the EU and that powers must be repatriated if the UK is going to remain a member, is neither here nor there. The UK cannot have its cake and eat it – we cannot repatriate powers and remain a member of the European Union. This simply cannot be done.
When, and only when, Mr Cameron understands this can we have a proper debate about "Europe". Anything else is just noise.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU politics: hammering it out
Monday 14 January 2013
Offhand, I cannot recall a torrent of EU publicity of such intensity, running for so long, directed at the withdrawal issue. No one can say that this is no longer an agenda item, bringing the scaremongers out in full force.
Latest in the long list of recruits to these ranks is Danny Alexander, the Lib-Dem Treasury Secretary and full time europhile. But, in the considered opinion of this man, no responsible leader could "contemplate" leaving the European Union, an interesting development. You will note that the offence here is to "contemplate" – now we're not even supposed to think about leaving. It is also interesting to see how the 'philes are quick to invoke "national interest", with Alexander asserting that this – i.e., europhilia – should "trump party political difficulties". At the heart of his pitch, though, is fear. "I just think that any responsible British politician should not be contemplating British exit from the EU given how serious the consequences should be", he says. So there you are – think of the consequences, but whatever you do, don't even think of leaving. Fortunately for Cameron, he is not entirely on his own with the chief executive of the retailer Next, Lord Wolfson telling the prime minister that although the UK should remain part of the EU it had nothing to fear from being in the "slow lane". Britain should stay in Europe, he says, "but only on the right terms". We also see the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), which represents many smaller firms, falling into line with the Cameron line, agreeing that EU membership should be renegotiated. However, coming up fast on the other side of the track is Eric Pickles, another cabinet minister who is saying that we have to up sticks and leave. This is on the back of Mr Cameron apparently deciding to reject "nuclear" proposals that are to be outlined by the Fresh Start group of MPs this week – allowing for certain proposals to be vetoed. And now we also get an intervention from George Eustice, who says of Fresh Start: "We have put forward a wishlist which we think is a helpful contribution to the debate. The government has a difficult job in deciding what it can achieve in the negotiations. Putting constructive ideas on the table is preferable to the alternative of everyone obsessing about a referendum on leaving the EU". The man, for once, isn't totally wrong, as there are still a number of Conservative MPs – Bill Cash being one – who want to see an immediate referendum, to give Cameron a mandate to negotiate. Simply, that isn't going to fly, which means that the debate is solidifying without reaching a conclusion. Some are thus arguing that we need to hammer out a change in the terms of the debate, and the vocabulary. Instead of talking about leaving, for instance, the view is emerging that we should instead be talking about "decoupling" trade from political integration. And for this, it just happens that Article 50 is the most appropriate mechanism. Unless someone can come up with such means, to break the logjam, Cameron's "Europe" speech is heading for disaster. The race is on for a magic bullet. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/01/2013 |
EU referendum: the sum of all our fears
Sunday 13 January 2013
 But, we might say, no one in their right mind would argue that Britain could – or even should - "go it alone", except that UKIP is arguing precisely that, with its plan to repeal the European Communities Act and then start negotiating with the EU. In this very narrow respect, Cameron is right. One can therefore see another part of the europhile strategy unfolding, alongside which UKIP is excluded from the serious debate while being exposed to knocking copy as the europhile Sunday Mirror offers details of the "ugly face" of the "homophobic" and "racist" UKIP. Meanwhile, the debate is further confused by the emergence of Swindon MP Robert Buckland, who hijacks the title of "Eurorealist" for himself. He is neither "Europhobe nor Europhile", he declares, as he rounds up around 20 Conservative MPs to publish a letter claiming that leaving the EU would cause "massive damage" to Britain economically and diplomatically. "There is a silent majority out there", he says, "who do not want Britain to leave the EU. It would be defeatist and of massive detriment to the UK and our influence would be greatly diminished, as the White House made clear". He adds: "The danger for the Tories is that because the Right-wing Eurosceptics are making the most noise, we could slide towards the exit door of the EU". What thus started as a simple question of whether we should stay in or leave the EU, therefore, is getting bogged down in a quagmire of claim and counter-claim. Loose terminology and imprecise definitions blur the edges while the lies confuse and deceive. All the time, the issue is being cast as an "economic" question, with the constitutional arguments relegated to the back burner. The "European Union" becomes "Europe" and the reality of us having been shackled to a system of government dedicated to political union has been all but completely lost. One bright note is that the push for renegotiation seems set to backfire. As it stands, Angela Leadsom et al are backing Mr Cameron into a corner, making it impossible for him to progress without making some concessions, while the "colleagues" are making it increasingly clear that they are not prepared to deal. Taking into account the latest polls, this offers some intriguing possibilities. At the moment, it is virtually a given that we would loose a straight "in-out" referendum, and is also likely that when offered a choice between a renegotiated deal and withdrawal, the majority would go for the deal. However, there the polls suggest that there is a third possibility, where the "offer" is between a failed or refused negotiation and withdrawal. In that event, the "out" proposition could well succeed. This puts Mr Cameron in an even more difficult position. He or his advisors will doubtless be aware of this possibility, which will add even more complications which he must factor into his forthcoming speech, making a referendum even more perilous. Yet another uncertainty is developing: Ed Miliband indicates that he will not follow Cameron in pledging a referendum, dismissing the prime minister's strategy as "incredibly dangerous". What is now beginning to shaping up is the classic Tory nightmare, with clear blue water between the two main protagonists, while their own party is irretrievably split over "Europe", leading to slaughter in the polls. This presents Cameron – and us all - with a lose-lose scenario. Whether he offers a referendum or not, his party splits, leaving it terminally weakened for the 2015 election, opening the way for a Labour government that has managed to avoid any commitment to a referendum. That will lock us into the EU for the foreseeable future. Probably, the only way out for Cameron is to make the weakness his strength, and go full-frontal for the exit, burying UKIP and recruiting not just part but most of the eurosceptic vote. If he then wholeheartedly made the case for a Britain outside the EU – which would not be difficult to do – this could be just enough the secure electoral victory. Sadly, there seems no way that Mr Cameron could countenance such a bold step, which means that we must suffer another five years of Labour before the EU gets back onto the agenda. And that is another price of "Europe" – the destruction of the Conservative Party. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/01/2013 |
EU politics: the gathering of the dinosaurs
Sunday 13 January 2013
True to form, the old dinosaurs of europhilia are joining forces to protect their precious "Europe". These are Ken Clarke and Lord Mandelson, in what the loss-making Observer calls "a historic cross-party bid to turn back the rising tide of Euroscepticism".
This is by no means the first time we have seen such cross party alliances, of course, and although this dreadful pair hardly agree on anything, they are united in their love for their common cause. Along with Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard, we are thus told that Clarke and Mandelson will spearhead a new organisation, the Centre for British Influence through Europe, (CBIE), which we have already met. It styles itself as "independent" and is set to support a cross-party "patriotic fightback for British leadership in Europe". Peter Wilding, director of the CBIE, and a former head of media for the Conservative party in the EU parliament, is fronting the organisation. He says: "Both Mandelson and Rennard are closely involved in our policy and campaign strategy. Having them with Ken Clarke on one platform, we think, says something in itself about the need for grown-up, consensual politics on Europe". It certainly does say something about the paucity of support for EU membership, when these two dinosaurs are all the campaign can find but, undaunted, Wilding goes on to say: "We would argue – and many in the Tory party would agree – that disengagement from Europe is profoundly contrary to Britain's national interests". The group claims that Eurosceptic plans for repatriation of powers are not supported by practical methods to achieve the objectives, while many proposals could be achieved by negotiating with allies within the system rather than through demands for treaty change. They also warn that an aggressive approach to reform could provoke a damaging backlash from other EU member states. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/01/2013 |
EU referendum: a mixed picture in the polls
Sunday 13 January 2013
An illiterate headline in the Sunday People launches a ComRes poll on voting intentions in next year's EU parliament elections. To no great surprise, 35 of those polled opted for Labour, 23 percent for UKIP and 22 percent for the Conservatives. The Lib Dems polled a dismal eight percent.
However, what is probably far more significant – pointing to the reason for the great angst amongst the Conservatives - is a finding that a significant tranche of UKIP support (37 percent of a sample size of 304) - sloughs away if Mr Cameron offers an "in-out" referendum on the EU.
This finding has Tory Diary's Tim Montgomerie commenting that, "Unless Cameron commits to an In/Out vote in his looming speech, I can't see how we are going to begin to cap the Farage phenomenon".
As to a referendum, the ComRes poll records 63 percent of its sample in favour of holding one, down from the last poll fifteen months ago when 68 percent favoured an "in-out" referendum. And, according to the poll, 42 percent would vote to stay in the EU, compared with just 33 percent intent on leaving, giving a clear majority to the "inners". Predictably, treaty renegotiation gets more support than a straight "out" option, with 42 percent in favour, compared with 41 percent in 2011. And a clear sixty percent oppose the idea of Britain joining the euro, even if the debt crisis is solved. From an Opinium poll in The Observer, though, we get a more nuanced picture, with only 25 percent of respondents believing that Cameron could claw back powers from the EU, as opposed to 47 percent who believe this unlikely. Here, the finding are more encouraging for the "outers", with the poll having 53 percent of respondents believing the UK should withdraw from the EU if Cameron could not negotiate a significant return of powers, compared with 19 percent who would want to remain in.
Despite this, Andrea Leadson and her "Fresh Start" group - supported by Open Europe - still want Cameron to renegotiate. Later this week, she will call for the repatriation of more than 130 powers which are claimed to be vital to retain "national democratic accountability", to "protect British interests and resist the rise of the EU superstate".
Nevertheless, out in the real world, the indications are that anti-EU sentiment is soft. There was, according to the Optimum poll, "a strong feeling" that people could support continued membership of the EU if it could be shown to have economic benefits. Two out of five (41 percent) agreed that being a member of the EU was a price worth paying if it benefited the economy, while only 30 percent disagreed. On general voting sentiment, incidentally, Labour are on 41 percent, the first time they have passed 40 percent since the end of October, while the Conservatives rise to 31 percent after over a month of being on 29 percent. A straw in the wind for UKIP has it dropping back to 12 percent, ending its recent surge but still putting them five points ahead of the Lib Dems, who drop to 7 percent , the lowest figure Opinium have ever recorded for the party. Real election results, however, tend to give a different picture. Altogether, on the EU front, these mixed results show there is everything to play for. Give a strong pro-EU campaign, the indications are that the europhiles could carry the day. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/01/2013 |
Booker: another fine Met they got us into
Sunday 13 January 2013
In his main piece today, Booker has a side-swipe at the Met Office and its attempt to bury bad news on Christmas Eve last, when it revised downwards its predictions for temperature increases for the next five years, displaying a revised graph to replace earlier higher predictions.
In 2011, the Met Office's computer model prediction had shown temperatures over the next five years soaring to a level 0.8 degrees higher than their average between 1971 and 2000, far higher than the previous record year, 1998. Whereas the new graph shows the lack of any significant warming for the past 15 years as likely to continue. Apart from how this was obscured by the BBC, there are several reasons why this is of wider significance for the rest of us. For a start, it is not generally realised what a central role the Met Office has played in promoting the worldwide scare over global warming. The predictions of its computer models, through its alliance with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (centre of the Climategate emails scandal), have been accorded unique prestige by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ever since the global-warming-obsessed John Houghton, then head of the Met Office, played a key part in setting up the IPCC in 1988. A major reason why the Met Office's forecasts have come such croppers in recent years is that its computer models since 1990 have assumed that by far the most important influence on global temperatures is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Yet as early as 2008, when temperatures temporarily plummeted by 0.7 degrees, equivalent to their entire net rise in the 20th century, it was already clear that something was fundamentally wrong with this assumption.
The models were not taking proper account of all the natural factors governing the climate, such as solar radiation and shifts in the major ocean currents. Even the warmists admitted that it was a freak El Niño event in the Pacific which had made 1998 the hottest year in modern times.
But the Met Office was not going to abandon easily its core belief that the main force shaping climate was that rise in CO2. As its chief scientist, Julia Slingo, admitted to MPs in 2010, its short-term forecasts are based on the same "numerical models" as "we use for our climate prediction work", and these have been predicting "hotter, drier summers" and "warmer winters" for decades ahead. Hence all those fiascos which have made the Met Office a laughing stock, from the "barbecue summer" that never was in 2008, to the "warmer than average winter" of 2010 which brought us our coldest-ever December, to its prediction last spring that April, May and June 2012 would probably be "drier than average", just before we enjoyed the wettest April and summer on record. Such a catastrophic blunder is scarcely mitigated by the Met Office's sneaky attempt to hide that absurd 2011 graph. One day it will be recognised how the Met Office's betrayal of proper science played a key part in creating the most expensive scare story the world has ever known, the colossal bill for which we will all be paying for decades to come. Meanwhile, concludes Booker, it is not just here that this latest fiasco, reported in many countries, has been raising eyebrows. Our ministers love to boast that British science commands respect throughout the world, They should note that the sorry record of our Met Office is beginning to do that reputation no good at all. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/01/2013 |
Posts
