Britannia Radio

EU referendum: more FUD   Thursday 31 January 2013 In October 1999, we had the the launch of the Britain in Europe euro campaign, whence we had Tony Blair telling us: For months, if not years, there has been a clamour from those opposed to Europe, that has always been shrill and often effective. We are told that Europe is bad for the British economy, that being part of Europe means abandoning our allies in the USA, that Europe is obstinately against reform, dedicated to bloated bureaucracy rather than the needs of European citizens, that being in Europe means losing our identity as the British nation, that as a consequence, Britain should rule out joining the euro and should prepare to leave Europe altogether. Then said Mr Blair, "It is time we took each of these arguments in turn and demolished them". Playing the economic card, Blair said 3.5m jobs depended on British membership of the EU and that last year alone 50,000 jobs had been created because of inward investment as a consequence of European membership. He said Britain was stronger because it was in the EU, although he accepted the need for reform of the Brussels bureaucracy. And sitting alongside the now former prime minister – nearly fourteen years ago - was Ken Clarke, the man who is now telling us that leaving the EU would be a "fatal mistake". Normally, people who are so consistently wrong become a laughing stock. But this does not apply to europhiles and the BBC. The FUD-factory is open house to predictions of doom. This, though, is the BBC report on the launch of British Influence yesterday. Of all the quotes they could have picked from Clarke's speech, this was the one. But then, they are nothing if not predictable, boringly so. After nearly fourteen years, Clarke still churns out the same old propaganda, the same mantras, the same tired old claims – and he is still talking about "reform". But the FUD makes the headline. Being the BBC, it seems, means never having to think up any new tactics. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 31/01/2013

EU politics: look elsewhere for the debate   Thursday 31 January 2013 The thing that struck me about the Commons debate on "Europe" (the bit I could tolerate) was its flatness – the lack of knowledge, imagination or of anything new to say. Whatever debate there is, it isn't being driven by MPs, who really do have nothing to offer except the same old, derivative mantras. For that debate, you are going to have to go to the blogs that the MPs don't read, such as Boiling Frog who has put up Part I of a further exploration of Article 50, taking on board the two-year negotiating period, and the response of the "colleagues". By coincidence, we also see a piece from Helen Szamuely in International Business Times, also on Article 50, this one in relation to an exit strategy. There is more wisdom, information and knowledge in these two pieces – both of them worth studying and keeping - than you will find in the hours of speeches from the ranks of dismal MPs who spoke today. None of these have spent any time learning the history of the EU, nor the dynamics of the Community. The shallowness and the misinformation from people who would lecture us on what we should do is, frankly, offensive. Therein lies much of our problem, especially with the likes of John Denham and Paul Blomfield who are so free with the insult "europhobe", men who complain of resentment towards the European Union, while speaking glibly of peace in Europe through their insults. These MPs in particular are a disgrace, but there is not one I would give time to, from the pompous Ben Gummer to the well-meaning but naïve Andrea Leadsom and the insolent Emma Reynolds. None have taken the trouble to keep themselves properly informed. They have nothing to tell us. Bizarrely though, information in this country is not at a premium. The ignorance of the "ordinary man" – even those who claim to be educated – is largely self-inflicted. It matches that of the MPs who claim to represent us. The information is there to be had, not least through the modern miracle of the internet and search engines, but it doesn't get to them. In fact, it is through that miracle that we can watch our MPs in action live. With a slight tweak in technology, two screens can be fitted to one computer – as I have done, which allows me to watch the ghastly proceedings on one, while working on a document on the other. Unfortunately, the technology does not bring the quality automatically. That, one has to search out, and too few people are doing that – especially MPs and their assistants and advisors. They should not be surprised, therefore, if they are progressively left out of the real debate. Worthless prattlers, they really are a waste of space and time. COMMENT: "DEBATE" THREAD Richard North 31/01/2013

EU politics: a debate in the House   Wednesday 30 January 2013 It was opened by foreign secretary, William Hague. "A new global race is underway", he says. Would this race be the political class? It is very difficult to take this debate seriously. We have Richard Ottaway, chairman of the foreign affairs committee, referring to "the Single Market … a British invention of Margaret Thatcher". Imbued with such formidable ignorance, people such as these disqualify themselves from the wider, grown-up debate. Then you have Julie Elliott, Labour MP for Sunderland whinging about "uncertainty" and commercial interests - with not a hint of understanding the arguments about membership of the EEA. She is locked in a time warp. Bill Cash leapt to his feet, commending Cameron rejecting the notion of "ever closer union", and calling for a referendum in this Parliament - before the next European elections. Everybody knows that there is a very serious requirement to have a decision earlier rather than later. Cash is asked whether he would campaign to come out of the European Union.  He answers that he believes that Cameron is right to have an in-out referendum, and if the democratic principle of whether or not people can govern itself, he will vote for "out". On the economic front, his "positive way forward" is effectively an "association of nation states". There is indeed a time warp surrounding the House of Commons, keeping the real world and the 21st Century at bay. Some people believe these are our "leaders". They are followers in the debate, so far behind the curve they can't even see it, fortified only by their own ignorance. Andrew Selous believes that people are "grown-up enough" to make a sensible decision in the national interest. How sweet. We (the Conservatives) have been consistent in wanting to allow the people to have a say in these issues (the EU) he says. And MPs wonder why they are treated with such contempt? This is march of the clichés. It is the role of politicians to make informed judgements says Mark "it's about geography" Hendrick, Labour member for Preston. But there is no sign of that happening, or even any sign that it is possible. So far, we have heard nothing that hasn't come out of the Janet John primer on "Europe". Thank goodness the back-benchers are only allowed to speak for seven minutes. Any longer would be a cruel and unusual punishment. But any amount of time from the patronising Brian Binley qualifies in that respect. We need to play a proactive part in the global village, he says. He is followed by Kate Hoey who thinks that Cameron is right to call for taking powers back from "Europe".  This is the "eurorealistic case", she says - the Common Market which we all joined has changed so much. She has a nice go at the ex-thief Richard Branson and his support for the euro. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. We then suffer Andrew Turner, another MP who thinks the Community started off as a Common Market and somehow lost its way. He wants it to change course, or the people should be allowed the choice of in or out. He hopes the prime minister can renegotiate, so that full sovereignty remains with the Commons. "The issue is sovereignty", he says. John Denham rises to tell us that anti-Europeanism is "driven by fear". The debate does not divide europhiles from europhobes, but pessimists from optimists - traditional pessimists like UKIP, those who wear flapping white coats. Carswell wants to know why only the political elites should be allowed to make the decisions, but he doesn't get an answer. Denham who makes being offensive an article of faith, is of course a member of the Executive Committee of the Fabian Society. No more need be said. And so to David Ruffey who tells us that there is little more than 20 miles across the Channel, where there are calls for "deeper, thicker integration". The bottom line is are we better off in or out ... these are important questions that need to be addressed. He's been taking lessons from Peter Sellers. But even he shines compared with Alison McGovern, educated at Brookhurst Primary School, and then Wirral Grammar School for Girls, where she was the Head Girl from 1998-1999. She then studied Philosophy at University College London. On graduation, she worked as a researcher at the House of Commons, before handling communications for development projects at Network Rail, becoming a councillor in the London Borough of Southwark and then MP for Wirral South. I've had enough. I can't take any more. I'll read the rest on Hansard, when it's up. COMMENT: "DEBATE" THREAD Richard North 30/01/2013

EU politics: "selfish Norway"   Wednesday 30 January 2013 So the spotlight on Norway continues, bringing to light this review of the functioning of the EEA. It was issued in Brussels on 7 December last year by the European Commission and, but for events, would have remained (for us) just another one of the thousands of documents pumped out by the EU each year, for which there simply isn't time to read. This one, mercifully, is only seventeen pages, and even then we get a helpful summary in EurActiv, telling us that Norway is failing to live up to its obligations as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), including imposing extra taxes on EU products and not implementing more than 400 directives. In the report, Norway is also being criticised for imposing tariffs on EU products from 2013 and resisting "EU efforts for ambitious liberalisation" of the EU's single market. Complains the Commission: "This situation might thus lead to competitive advantages for operators based in the EEA-EFTA countries, and more fundamentally risks undermining the legal certainty and homogeneity of the single market". Moreover, the EU also dislikes the fact that Norway has rejected several directives coming from Brussels. The Norwegian government has for example warned it won’t implement the EU's postal directive about competitiveness for letter mail weighting less than 50 grams. Danish MEP Bendt Bendtsen (European People's Party), who has been closely following the trade issues with Norway, says the problems started in 2012 when Norway raised the price of hydrangeas from the EU by 72 percent. Eventually, the extra taxes spread to EU food products such as cheese and meat. Bendtsen says Norway is acting "selfishly" and that the taxes were put on EU goods "deliberately" as the Norwegian Centre Party, which is part of the Norwegian government, has for a long time pushed for the extra taxes. "Norway only wants the cream on the cake," the MEP says. Brining it bang up-to-date is a report on Norway's TV2 News which headlines that Norway is "threatened with hefty fines" from the EU, while another report has Conservative Party leader Erna Solberg blaming the Socialist government for "poor co-operation" with the EU. All this paints a very different picture from the image of poor little Norway rolling over and implementing a new law every time the ancient fax machine stutters into life, presenting a much more dynamic and troubled relationship between Norway and the EU. It may suit the likes of David Cameron to paint a one-dimensional (and dishonest) picture of the relationship, but real life is very different. In fact, links between the EU and Norway are under constant review, and even the Schengen Agreement is being questioned, mainly in response to the Romanian and Bulgarian accession. I'm beginning to get a sense of the game the Norwegians are playing, which is subtle and clever. Presenting an image to the world as weak, powerless neighbour to the mighty EU, it is using this carefully cultivated image as cover for a ruthlessly aggressive foreign policy, while it exploits every gap and loophole in international agreements, itself acting the bully with its smaller neighbours, as we see with the mackerel dispute. The Norwegians are not quite the innocents that they would like to make out, and seem to be playing a very successful game of protecting their own national interests, without people realising what they are doing. It is no wonder that so many want the UK to stay in the EU. They don't want Britain to enjoy the same competitive advantages as Norway. COMMENT THREAD  Richard North 30/01/2013