According to the Times' cracking Red Box blog:
Labour are searching for an idea, any idea, to get them out of their current malaise and they are becoming as extreme as they are desperate. The latest advance from Slough MP Fiona McTaggart was to suggest having a referendum on Europe which would take place three months before a general election. Not, you understand, because the battle needs to be fought but to try and expose divisions in the Tories.
Too late... you made your bed and now...
Visit our new website.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Premptive implementation
As Richard North and others have pointed out, the UK Government often scrambles to put EU legislation into practice before it is even agreed in Brussels.
The main advantage of this is to make it look like the Government are taking action rather than being forced to take action.
For controversial measures it also means the Government can say that the new EU law "will not change our current rules".
And so it seems to be with the Health Services Directive. You can find a briefing on the directive here.
It came up in December and took a beating from Labour backbenchers. Former Health Secretary Frank Dobson said that "It will be catastrophic for the NHS if this directive goes through." Jon Trickett said: "This Directive could well mark the beginning of the end of the NHS."
They were angry that the EU was basically implementing the old Conservative "Patients Passport" idea which Labour had won an election by opposing. They got together an EDM, the story started to hit the papers and the Government took fright - not least because it looked like was going to make it tricky to steer theEU Constitution Lisbon Treaty through the Commons.
So it was shelved until after the UK ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish referendum.
Of course, now that's all out of the way, back it comes.
It is rereleased today using a bunch of other social legislation for air cover.
And lo, the UK Government have already started to implement it. Look in the new "NHS Constitution" released two days ago we see that:
You have the right to seek treatment elsewhere in Europe if you are entitled to NHS treatment but you face undue delay in receiving that treatment.
Which is the key point in the Health Directive.
Message to Labour backbenchers: you might as well not have bothered. The EU has spoken. If you don't like it, tough luck.
The main advantage of this is to make it look like the Government are taking action rather than being forced to take action.
For controversial measures it also means the Government can say that the new EU law "will not change our current rules".
And so it seems to be with the Health Services Directive. You can find a briefing on the directive here.
It came up in December and took a beating from Labour backbenchers. Former Health Secretary Frank Dobson said that "It will be catastrophic for the NHS if this directive goes through." Jon Trickett said: "This Directive could well mark the beginning of the end of the NHS."
They were angry that the EU was basically implementing the old Conservative "Patients Passport" idea which Labour had won an election by opposing. They got together an EDM, the story started to hit the papers and the Government took fright - not least because it looked like was going to make it tricky to steer the
So it was shelved until after the UK ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish referendum.
Of course, now that's all out of the way, back it comes.
It is rereleased today using a bunch of other social legislation for air cover.
And lo, the UK Government have already started to implement it. Look in the new "NHS Constitution" released two days ago we see that:
You have the right to seek treatment elsewhere in Europe if you are entitled to NHS treatment but you face undue delay in receiving that treatment.
Which is the key point in the Health Directive.
Message to Labour backbenchers: you might as well not have bothered. The EU has spoken. If you don't like it, tough luck.
Is it too early...
...to say that Sarkozy is going to be a massive disappointment as French President?
Watching the footage of him on Newsnight last night - totally pissed after his meeting with Putin - you do have to wonder. Would you drink heavily in a meeting with someone like Putin? And then give a press conference?
From Newsnight
The French papers already seem a little tired of him buzzing around like a wasp but not achieving anything.
He is in danger of turning into Bettino Craxi, the 1980s Italian PM, whose "decisionismo" style ultimately failed to mask a yawning lack of substance.
Craxi's time ended in a welter of chaos, debt, and corruption. Sarko isn't that bad.
It is tempting to say that he is all style and no substance. But when it comes to world trade, enlargement, or the future of the EU he is a genuine menace.
The little fella is certainly entertaining to watch. But when he wants to shaft people in the developing world for reasons which are utterly short-sighted (newsflash: trade is good for your economy) then he isn't so funny any more.
Watching the footage of him on Newsnight last night - totally pissed after his meeting with Putin - you do have to wonder. Would you drink heavily in a meeting with someone like Putin? And then give a press conference?
From Newsnight
The French papers already seem a little tired of him buzzing around like a wasp but not achieving anything.
He is in danger of turning into Bettino Craxi, the 1980s Italian PM, whose "decisionismo" style ultimately failed to mask a yawning lack of substance.
Craxi's time ended in a welter of chaos, debt, and corruption. Sarko isn't that bad.
It is tempting to say that he is all style and no substance. But when it comes to world trade, enlargement, or the future of the EU he is a genuine menace.
The little fella is certainly entertaining to watch. But when he wants to shaft people in the developing world for reasons which are utterly short-sighted (newsflash: trade is good for your economy) then he isn't so funny any more.
discrimination update
It looks like we might have been on to something with our earlier post on Harman's plans for positive discrimination.
From PA today:
UK retirement rules face a legal challenge today in a landmark case which could force changes to employment law. Age Concern claims that compelling people to stop work at or after 65 without compensation breaches EU equality requirements.
The organisation's lawyers will argue at a hearing in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg that the UK Employment Equality (Age) Regulations are contrary to the EU's Equal Treatment Directive, which bans employment discrimination on grounds of, amongst other things, age.
The UK regulations, introduced in 2006, do ban discrimination against an employee on grounds of age - with the exception of pensioners who can be dismissed without redundancy payments once they reach the age of 65, or the mandatory retirement age of the company if it is above 65. Government lawyers will argue that the exception is a matter for national rules, and the situation of retirement age workers should not be governed by the EU Directive.
Hmmm...
If the Government is already running into trouble on age discrimination from the last round of EU equalities legislation then they probably have a reasonable chance of a bumpy ride with their own next round which is far more controversial.
Be prepared: an EU lawyer could be hiding round the corner
From PA today:
UK retirement rules face a legal challenge today in a landmark case which could force changes to employment law. Age Concern claims that compelling people to stop work at or after 65 without compensation breaches EU equality requirements.
The organisation's lawyers will argue at a hearing in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg that the UK Employment Equality (Age) Regulations are contrary to the EU's Equal Treatment Directive, which bans employment discrimination on grounds of, amongst other things, age.
The UK regulations, introduced in 2006, do ban discrimination against an employee on grounds of age - with the exception of pensioners who can be dismissed without redundancy payments once they reach the age of 65, or the mandatory retirement age of the company if it is above 65. Government lawyers will argue that the exception is a matter for national rules, and the situation of retirement age workers should not be governed by the EU Directive.
Hmmm...
If the Government is already running into trouble on age discrimination from the last round of EU equalities legislation then they probably have a reasonable chance of a bumpy ride with their own next round which is far more controversial.
Be prepared: an EU lawyer could be hiding round the corner
love the mindset
From Euractiv
In the aftermath of the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty, European institutions are yet again confronted with their failure to communicate the benefits of Europe with citizens.
Pesky citizens! Why are they so thick? We're already spending about a gazillion euros onpropaganda information.
Can't we just abolish them?
In the aftermath of the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty, European institutions are yet again confronted with their failure to communicate the benefits of Europe with citizens.
Pesky citizens! Why are they so thick? We're already spending about a gazillion euros on
Can't we just abolish them?
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
where is the evidence for this?
From the FT:
Mr Sarkozy said he would not accept the loss of 100,000 jobs that would result from a trade deal being backed by Peter Mandelson, the European Union’s trade commissioner, and Pascal Lamy, the WTO’s secretary-general. According to Mr Sarkozy, this outline deal would cut the EU’s agricultural production by 20 per cent and its exports by 10 per cent.
What 100,000 jobs? Where is the economic research? It sounds like a suspiciously round number, so we can safely assume it has been pulled out of thin air.
Mr Sarkozy said he would not accept the loss of 100,000 jobs that would result from a trade deal being backed by Peter Mandelson, the European Union’s trade commissioner, and Pascal Lamy, the WTO’s secretary-general. According to Mr Sarkozy, this outline deal would cut the EU’s agricultural production by 20 per cent and its exports by 10 per cent.
What 100,000 jobs? Where is the economic research? It sounds like a suspiciously round number, so we can safely assume it has been pulled out of thin air.
all we have to fear is...
Harry Truman said that "the best threat is a vague threat".
It's also true that the best horror films are the ones where you don't get to actually see the big scary monster too early in the proceedings.
And so it proves for the euro-loons.
There has been an interesting game of ping pong going on at the FT.
Last week Wolfgang Munchau was muttering darkly about how there was a secret mechanism to chuck Ireland out of the EU if they didn't correct their "no" vote.
This prompted some gentle teasing from his FT colleague, Gideon Rachman, who is a a former Brussels correspondent. He wondered what exactly this scary secret mechanism was.
Goaded by this, Munchau has retuned to the fray. He says:
"I wrote that it was possible to exclude a country from the EU as long as there was a political will. Let me explain today how this can be done, in all its gory detail."
But lo, when exposed to the light, the full ludicrousness of this threat is revealed. First he makes what looks like a confession:
Can a country be excluded from membership of the European Union? The answer is no. Does a non-ratification of a treaty by a single member state prevent a treaty from entering into force? The answer is yes. Both answers are as true as they are meaningless.
Nor does he think that holding a gun to the head of the poor Croatians would work:
Whether the enlargement threat will impress the Irish eurosceptics is unclear. I doubt it. My impression is that the Irish No voters are mostly concerned with their narrow Irish-related issues.
How dare the Irish vote on Irish grounds...
But finally he gets to the bottom line:
There is, of course, the ultimate threat; not a trial separation, but permanent divorce. The Lisbon ratifiers formally leave the EU, and re-group under a new rival organisation.
Munchau fesses up that:
In reality, this is not so much an option, but the thing you do when you have run out of options, the strategic choice of last resort. Like a nuclear bomb, it is a useful device to be used in an emergency, not something you plan for.
Ha!
It's rather like the terrible bit in Jaws where the terrifying killer shark finally comes out of the water to try and munch the hero, and it turns that it is actually a huge comedy rubber 1970s blow up shark. Not very realistic. And not, therefore, very scary.
Postscript: Now Rachman has written back. He wonders what was so great about the Lisbon Treaty anyway.
It's also true that the best horror films are the ones where you don't get to actually see the big scary monster too early in the proceedings.
And so it proves for the euro-loons.
There has been an interesting game of ping pong going on at the FT.
Last week Wolfgang Munchau was muttering darkly about how there was a secret mechanism to chuck Ireland out of the EU if they didn't correct their "no" vote.
This prompted some gentle teasing from his FT colleague, Gideon Rachman, who is a a former Brussels correspondent. He wondered what exactly this scary secret mechanism was.
Goaded by this, Munchau has retuned to the fray. He says:
"I wrote that it was possible to exclude a country from the EU as long as there was a political will. Let me explain today how this can be done, in all its gory detail."
But lo, when exposed to the light, the full ludicrousness of this threat is revealed. First he makes what looks like a confession:
Can a country be excluded from membership of the European Union? The answer is no. Does a non-ratification of a treaty by a single member state prevent a treaty from entering into force? The answer is yes. Both answers are as true as they are meaningless.
Nor does he think that holding a gun to the head of the poor Croatians would work:
Whether the enlargement threat will impress the Irish eurosceptics is unclear. I doubt it. My impression is that the Irish No voters are mostly concerned with their narrow Irish-related issues.
How dare the Irish vote on Irish grounds...
But finally he gets to the bottom line:
There is, of course, the ultimate threat; not a trial separation, but permanent divorce. The Lisbon ratifiers formally leave the EU, and re-group under a new rival organisation.
Munchau fesses up that:
In reality, this is not so much an option, but the thing you do when you have run out of options, the strategic choice of last resort. Like a nuclear bomb, it is a useful device to be used in an emergency, not something you plan for.
Ha!
It's rather like the terrible bit in Jaws where the terrifying killer shark finally comes out of the water to try and munch the hero, and it turns that it is actually a huge comedy rubber 1970s blow up shark. Not very realistic. And not, therefore, very scary.
Postscript: Now Rachman has written back. He wonders what was so great about the Lisbon Treaty anyway.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The EU has not been this unpopular in Britain since 1983
Blimey.
There is a very important poll result in the Commission's new Eurobarometer poll which has been completely overlooked amid the frenzy about Ireland.
We finally got round to looking back at the previous results of the Eurobarometer to put the most recent result into context. We have pieced together the series of Eurobarometers back to the eighties.
The result is really striking. The EU has not been this unpopular in Britain since 1983.
Here is the finding from the latest poll:
UK, June 2008
Generally speaking, do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is...?
32% Bad thing (+4 since December 2007)
30% Good thing (-4% since December 2007)
30% Neither
8% Don't know
Taking everything into account, would you say that (OUR COUNTRY) has on balance benefited or not from being a member of the European Union?
50% Not benefited
36% Benefited
14% Don't know
That is striking enough.
But if you put that in historic context, the last time the EU/EEC was this unpopular was during the run up to the UK rebate negotiations.
Back then Mrs T was frantically battling to get the famous "rebate" in order to stop what was then one of Europe's poorest countries from paying the lion's share of contributions.
Have a look:
Here is the proportion saying membership is a "good thing" in blue and a "bad thing" in pink.
Or here is the proportion saying good minus that saying bad.
As you can see, from a lead of 44% in the summer of 1991, support for the EU has collapsed and 2% more now think the is a bad thing than good thing.
As EU leaders arrogantly try to ram through the Lisbon Treaty despite the Irish "no" vote they should reflect on this - they really are dancing on a volcano.
There is a very important poll result in the Commission's new Eurobarometer poll which has been completely overlooked amid the frenzy about Ireland.
We finally got round to looking back at the previous results of the Eurobarometer to put the most recent result into context. We have pieced together the series of Eurobarometers back to the eighties.
The result is really striking. The EU has not been this unpopular in Britain since 1983.
Here is the finding from the latest poll:
UK, June 2008
Generally speaking, do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is...?
32% Bad thing (+4 since December 2007)
30% Good thing (-4% since December 2007)
30% Neither
8% Don't know
Taking everything into account, would you say that (OUR COUNTRY) has on balance benefited or not from being a member of the European Union?
50% Not benefited
36% Benefited
14% Don't know
That is striking enough.
But if you put that in historic context, the last time the EU/EEC was this unpopular was during the run up to the UK rebate negotiations.
Back then Mrs T was frantically battling to get the famous "rebate" in order to stop what was then one of Europe's poorest countries from paying the lion's share of contributions.
Have a look:
Here is the proportion saying membership is a "good thing" in blue and a "bad thing" in pink.
Or here is the proportion saying good minus that saying bad.
As you can see, from a lead of 44% in the summer of 1991, support for the EU has collapsed and 2% more now think the is a bad thing than good thing.
As EU leaders arrogantly try to ram through the Lisbon Treaty despite the Irish "no" vote they should reflect on this - they really are dancing on a volcano.
error...error...
Intriguing comments from Sarko on AFP:
"There have been errors in the way that Europe has been built," Sarkozy acknowledged during a television interview on the eve of the starting day for the six-month French EU presidency.
"Something isn't right. Something isn't right at all,"
But what "errors" are they?
More from Kouchner too:
"There have been errors in the way that Europe has been built," Sarkozy acknowledged during a television interview on the eve of the starting day for the six-month French EU presidency.
"Something isn't right. Something isn't right at all,"
But what "errors" are they?
More from Kouchner too:
A formal handover ceremony of the EU presidency from Slovenia to France was held in Nova Gorica on Monday, with Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel telling his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner that the union was "in rather good shape."
"You say it's in good shape," Kouchner remarked. " Well, yes, let's rather say it is in average shape."
Grand designs
Around the EU quarter in Brussels there seems to be a lot of building work going on.
Firstly there is a big office block being torn down between the Council's Justus Lipsius building and the shiny new Lex building.
Justus Lipsus... LEX building
Its replacement is going to be rather unusual looking...
... and apparently this will be the new Council building when they move into the Residence Palace in a few years time. Clearly the current building, with a mere 24 kilometers of corridors, is too small.
However, there are some other big buildings going up. On the other side of the Schuman Roundabout from the Commission there is something big under construction.
The trademark glass curtain wall - which seems to be compulsory for all buildings in the EU area - is just being stuck on at the moment.
And then there is a third huge new building. It is being thrown up round the back of the Council on the Belliard side.
Are these new buildings just offices for lobbyists, or are some of them for the new EU institutions set up by the (rejected) Lisbon Treaty? Do any Brussels residents know?
There are certainly some very grand designs afoot for the EU quarter.
According to AFP, there is currently a competition for architects to carry out "operation facelift" which will tart up the whole area and incorporate a bunch of new EU buildings (another 220,000 square metres of EU office space, according to wikipedia)
And it's not like the EU is cramped for space now. The Commission already seems to occupy a fair chunk of Brussels and lists 68 main buildings in Brussels. (Never mind the buildings of the Parliament or the Council or the buildings outside Brussels.)
To paraphrase Jose Barroso, is there a degree of empire building going on here?
Firstly there is a big office block being torn down between the Council's Justus Lipsius building and the shiny new Lex building.
Justus Lipsus... LEX building
Its replacement is going to be rather unusual looking...
... and apparently this will be the new Council building when they move into the Residence Palace in a few years time. Clearly the current building, with a mere 24 kilometers of corridors, is too small.
However, there are some other big buildings going up. On the other side of the Schuman Roundabout from the Commission there is something big under construction.
The trademark glass curtain wall - which seems to be compulsory for all buildings in the EU area - is just being stuck on at the moment.
And then there is a third huge new building. It is being thrown up round the back of the Council on the Belliard side.
Are these new buildings just offices for lobbyists, or are some of them for the new EU institutions set up by the (rejected) Lisbon Treaty? Do any Brussels residents know?
There are certainly some very grand designs afoot for the EU quarter.
According to AFP, there is currently a competition for architects to carry out "operation facelift" which will tart up the whole area and incorporate a bunch of new EU buildings (another 220,000 square metres of EU office space, according to wikipedia)
And it's not like the EU is cramped for space now. The Commission already seems to occupy a fair chunk of Brussels and lists 68 main buildings in Brussels. (Never mind the buildings of the Parliament or the Council or the buildings outside Brussels.)
To paraphrase Jose Barroso, is there a degree of empire building going on here?
There's going to be some trouble
versus 
According to RTE Irish no campaigners are planning to protest against Nicolas Sarkozy when you goes to Ireland on 11 July to
Good to know they are on top of things
The Tories are trying to get their hands on the minutes of the Coreper meetings in which the Perm Reps discussed setting up the EU diplomatic service (as discovered by Bruno Waterfield)
They have a question down.
Mark Francois:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the European Commission's report on the COREPER meetings on the European External Action Service held on 7 and 13 May 2008
Jim Murphy, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
holding answer 13 June 2008
It is for the European Commission to decide what it does with internal records of meetings attended by its officials.
Er... Coreper is not a committee of people who work for the Commission - it is a committee of all the Permanent Representatives of the member states. Basically our (civil servant) ambassadors to the EU. And can't we publish what our own British officials are saying in Brussels? (hint: no)
On the other hand I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make given the tendency of our Perm Secs to go native over the years.
It's like the old joke about the lost tourist in Whitehall who asks a policeman which side the Foreign Office is on:
"Supposedly ours, but you have to wonder sometimes."
They have a question down.
Mark Francois:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the European Commission's report on the COREPER meetings on the European External Action Service held on 7 and 13 May 2008
Jim Murphy, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
holding answer 13 June 2008
It is for the European Commission to decide what it does with internal records of meetings attended by its officials.
Er... Coreper is not a committee of people who work for the Commission - it is a committee of all the Permanent Representatives of the member states. Basically our (civil servant) ambassadors to the EU. And can't we publish what our own British officials are saying in Brussels? (hint: no)
On the other hand I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make given the tendency of our Perm Secs to go native over the years.
It's like the old joke about the lost tourist in Whitehall who asks a policeman which side the Foreign Office is on:
"Supposedly ours, but you have to wonder sometimes."
Will EU law shoot down Harman's plans on discrimination?
We did promise a post on this.
To cut a long story short there will be no problem in terms of positive discrimination in employment. Article 141(4) of the TEC allows this:
With a view to ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers.
This was inserted into the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 after the 1995 Kalanke case, in which the ECJ had shot down a regional German "positive discrimination" law.
Article 141(4) is not a complete catch all. "Positive discrimination" rules still have to be based on evidence of de facto inequalities and have to be based on transparent and objective criteria.
But the UK Government's plans will (probably) avoid falling into that trap.
If there is going to be a problem it will be on access to services - e.g. are insurance and healthcare companies allowed to practice positive discrimination? Can she force them not to discriminate on age grounds if there are rational reasons to do so?
The Association of British Insurers certainly don't like the proposal on age discrimination.
“Legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could have the unintended negative consequence of forcing some insurers to withdraw certain products altogether, reducing competition and availability, and pushing up prices for all age groups.”
Could the ABI say that anti-age-discrimination rules were a restriction of their freedom of establishment under EU law? It certainly seems odd that a French company could offer a certain rate, but one based in the UK could not.
A few years ago the EU had to bin its plans to ban gender discrimination in insurance.
When they came back with a new version (the Gender Directive - which came into force in April) it allows insurers to discriminate based on an objective set of criteria based on data published in official tables. But no such tables exist for age discrimination, at least not yet.
Even if the UK were to adopt such an "objective" approach in the UK legislation, it could be challenged as it has not been agreed under EU law.
The whole issue of positive discrimination and anti-discrimination is much more messy in Eu law as soon as you move away from pay and conditions and in to social security and the provision of services. In the early 1980s the EU tried and failed to agree a directive on positive discrimination.
It seems to us that the UK could run into some problems with the new equalities legislation, unless EU law in this area is changed. So it will be interesting to have a close read of the Commission's proposal on Wednesday.
On the other hand we could be completely wrong. EU law experts (we know you are out there) what do you think?
To cut a long story short there will be no problem in terms of positive discrimination in employment. Article 141(4) of the TEC allows this:
With a view to ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers.
This was inserted into the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 after the 1995 Kalanke case, in which the ECJ had shot down a regional German "positive discrimination" law.
Article 141(4) is not a complete catch all. "Positive discrimination" rules still have to be based on evidence of de facto inequalities and have to be based on transparent and objective criteria.
But the UK Government's plans will (probably) avoid falling into that trap.
If there is going to be a problem it will be on access to services - e.g. are insurance and healthcare companies allowed to practice positive discrimination? Can she force them not to discriminate on age grounds if there are rational reasons to do so?
The Association of British Insurers certainly don't like the proposal on age discrimination.
“Legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could have the unintended negative consequence of forcing some insurers to withdraw certain products altogether, reducing competition and availability, and pushing up prices for all age groups.”
Could the ABI say that anti-age-discrimination rules were a restriction of their freedom of establishment under EU law? It certainly seems odd that a French company could offer a certain rate, but one based in the UK could not.
A few years ago the EU had to bin its plans to ban gender discrimination in insurance.
When they came back with a new version (the Gender Directive - which came into force in April) it allows insurers to discriminate based on an objective set of criteria based on data published in official tables. But no such tables exist for age discrimination, at least not yet.
Even if the UK were to adopt such an "objective" approach in the UK legislation, it could be challenged as it has not been agreed under EU law.
The whole issue of positive discrimination and anti-discrimination is much more messy in Eu law as soon as you move away from pay and conditions and in to social security and the provision of services. In the early 1980s the EU tried and failed to agree a directive on positive discrimination.
It seems to us that the UK could run into some problems with the new equalities legislation, unless EU law in this area is changed. So it will be interesting to have a close read of the Commission's proposal on Wednesday.
On the other hand we could be completely wrong. EU law experts (we know you are out there) what do you think?
hanging on the telephone
It looks like there will be a new round of rows between the EU and the mobile phone companies over the EU's plans to further regulate prices.The Telegraph reports that "Mobile phone companies could stop offering free handsets to their customers after the European Commission vowed to cut the price of phone calls." Apparently "The mobile industry warned that as many as 100 million Europeans could be priced out of the market." It also says that the EU and the UK's OFCOM are on a collision course.
The (ongoing) mobile phone row is quite interesting - not just as an example of the EU's amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - but also of a fundamental tension in the way the EU does things.
The EU: retro -and not in a good way
In the case of mobile phones the commission had and has a choice between (a) measures to increase competition in the wholesale market and increase transparency, or (b) direct price controls.
The former is clearly better from an economic point of view (the idea that the Government should control prices directly has been rather discredited since 1989), but the latter is more visible and more populist. The Commission went for the latter, so that it could show it was "delivering benefits" for citizens.
Mobile phones are far from being the only example of this. One of the best writers on this subject is Giandomenico Majone. It's quite hard to pin down exactly where he is coming from (federalist? confederalist?), but one of his main theses is that the Monnet method of integration by stealth is failing.
He argues that the EU often has to choose between efficiency and deeper integration or democratic legitimacy and deeper integration, and always has to choose deeper integration.
He also argues that an inevitable side effect is over-regulation and an institutional framework which is too rigid to allow innovation (and few government policies are worse for innovation than direct price controls)
As well as being bad for the economy, Majone's real worry is that the "community method" is bad for democracy. In a paper for Jacques Delors' think tank Notre Europe he writes:
The fact that the functionalist (or Monnet) approach to European integration taken in the 1950s entails a fundamental trade-off between integration and democracy.
The logic of the approach is such that any time a choice between integration and democracy has to be made, the decision is, and must be, always in favour of integration. This logic is evident in the case of the classic Community Method.
The most important feature of the method—the Commission’s monopoly of legislative and policy initiative—represents a flagrant violation of both the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the very idea of parliamentary democracy.
[]
As we saw above, legitimacy involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for
a given society. In the case of a new system such as the EU, which cannot count on traditional sources of legitimacy, this presupposes the ability to sustain popular expectations, on the grounds of effectiveness, for a period long enough to develop legitimacy upon a new basis. This is the reason why the poor economic performance of the EU economy over decades is so worrisome also from a normative viewpoint.
With which we can only agree.
zounds
Quite an amusing piece by Richard Corbett:
Following the Tory expense scandal that accounted for their leader Giles Chichester and chief whip Den Dover, the Conservatives have appointed Phillip Bushill Matthews to lead their delegation in the European Parliament.
Speaking to a local newspaper Bushill Matthews said: "The national press only seem interested in selectively promoting the 'gravy train' image of the European Parliament."
This is a bit rich, coming from him, as his own book on the Parliament was called "The Gravy Train".
Apparently the book tries to "debunk the gravy train image."
Good luck with that in light of recent events.
Following the Tory expense scandal that accounted for their leader Giles Chichester and chief whip Den Dover, the Conservatives have appointed Phillip Bushill Matthews to lead their delegation in the European Parliament.
Speaking to a local newspaper Bushill Matthews said: "The national press only seem interested in selectively promoting the 'gravy train' image of the European Parliament."
This is a bit rich, coming from him, as his own book on the Parliament was called "The Gravy Train".
Apparently the book tries to "debunk the gravy train image."
Good luck with that in light of recent events.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Coming soon: "Social Agenda Plus"
Under this slightly dreary title the Commission is planning to propose a whole bunch of new social legislation next Wednesday.
Barroso is now fighting for his political life - and coming under sustained fire from Sarkozy. He would have been fine if the Lisbon Treaty carve up had gone ahead as forseen. He could have stayed at the Commission while "balancing" appointments were made for the proposed Foreign Minister and President. But without those jobs to fill to balance the ticket, he could be out on his ear.
That's part of the reason the Commission are going to do some more supposedly "social" stuff.
The word on thestreet strasse rue is that next week's package will include:
* More anti-discrimination legislation.
* A tightening up of the European Works Councils Directive
* The Health Services Directive (likely to be rebranded as the "Patient Mobility Directive".
* Maybe something on parental leave.
The most interesting stuff is probably the anti discrimination point. The focus is on the access to services side, rather than employment rights. That means things like insurance - no discrimination on things like age or sex.
That’s always controversial if there are rational reasons for insurers to do things (e.g. the furore a few years back when the EU tried to clamp down of cheaper car insurance for women - because they crash less.)
There are certainly some uncertainties about the current EU law on age discrimination. But the new proposal sounds like it might go further than just "tidying up."
The UK is certainly up for supporting it. Indeed, the UK may be preemptively carrying it out with its own legislation. In Parliament yesterday:
Ms Patricia Hewitt (Leicester, West) (Lab): May I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a set of proposals that will come to be seen as a major landmark in the long march to equality? Will she also ensure that the Government do everything possible to support the French presidency in its attempt to get early agreement on proposals for a European framework directive on equality, which will set minimum standards for all European citizens, across the European Union?
Ms Harman: I can certainly assure my right hon. Friend that that will be the case. I pay tribute to our Members of the European Parliament, particularly Michael Cashman, for their pioneering work at European level.
A slightly random thought is that the UK Government may have another interest in all this. Unless they carefully dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s then the Government's plans to allow positive discrimination might potentially fall foul of anti-discrimination EU law... which would be "interesting". More in the next blog.
Barroso is now fighting for his political life - and coming under sustained fire from Sarkozy. He would have been fine if the Lisbon Treaty carve up had gone ahead as forseen. He could have stayed at the Commission while "balancing" appointments were made for the proposed Foreign Minister and President. But without those jobs to fill to balance the ticket, he could be out on his ear.
That's part of the reason the Commission are going to do some more supposedly "social" stuff.
The word on the
* More anti-discrimination legislation.
* A tightening up of the European Works Councils Directive
* The Health Services Directive (likely to be rebranded as the "Patient Mobility Directive".
* Maybe something on parental leave.
The most interesting stuff is probably the anti discrimination point. The focus is on the access to services side, rather than employment rights. That means things like insurance - no discrimination on things like age or sex.
That’s always controversial if there are rational reasons for insurers to do things (e.g. the furore a few years back when the EU tried to clamp down of cheaper car insurance for women - because they crash less.)
There are certainly some uncertainties about the current EU law on age discrimination. But the new proposal sounds like it might go further than just "tidying up."
The UK is certainly up for supporting it. Indeed, the UK may be preemptively carrying it out with its own legislation. In Parliament yesterday:
Ms Patricia Hewitt (Leicester, West) (Lab): May I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a set of proposals that will come to be seen as a major landmark in the long march to equality? Will she also ensure that the Government do everything possible to support the French presidency in its attempt to get early agreement on proposals for a European framework directive on equality, which will set minimum standards for all European citizens, across the European Union?
Ms Harman: I can certainly assure my right hon. Friend that that will be the case. I pay tribute to our Members of the European Parliament, particularly Michael Cashman, for their pioneering work at European level.
A slightly random thought is that the UK Government may have another interest in all this. Unless they carefully dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s then the Government's plans to allow positive discrimination might potentially fall foul of anti-discrimination EU law... which would be "interesting". More in the next blog.
Your flexible friend?
Aparrently the French are going to propose a "European Citizen Card"
Faced with a lack of coordination between member states' policies and laws, which sometimes lead to unsolved legal issues, the report recommends the creation of a European Citizen Card.
The card would act as a "judicial passport" which would serve as a permanent residence permit, a work permit, a certificate of nationality, a health card and a social security card.
Wonder what no2id will make of this?
Faced with a lack of coordination between member states' policies and laws, which sometimes lead to unsolved legal issues, the report recommends the creation of a European Citizen Card.
The card would act as a "judicial passport" which would serve as a permanent residence permit, a work permit, a certificate of nationality, a health card and a social security card.
Wonder what no2id will make of this?
mystery map
At first we thought this was a map of attitudes to the EU....
It certainly looks about right: Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands always same to wind up on the same side in the Council.
... but actually it's something else. And perhaps the eastern countries might look different if it was what we thought. But anyway, it's interesting that 210 million people in Europe have something in common.
It certainly looks about right: Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands always same to wind up on the same side in the Council.
... but actually it's something else. And perhaps the eastern countries might look different if it was what we thought. But anyway, it's interesting that 210 million people in Europe have something in common.
This is hysterical
German TV channel RTL have done a great feature on corruption in the European Parliament. (Hat tip: EUreferendum and EU corruption)
When oh when will the BBC run something like this? Its just great TV.
Our fave moment is where one MEP is so busy running away that she runs into a wall. Ouch!
Cameraman - Please come out of the lift - what is the problem?
MEP - Such impertinence!
Cameraman - Why is it impertinence?
MEP - *runs away*
Hans-Peter Martin must be tout unpopular in the comedy Parliament.
But so is Paul Van Buitenen
Try also this. Good to see that they have time on their hands.
Vaguely charming though.
When oh when will the BBC run something like this? Its just great TV.
Our fave moment is where one MEP is so busy running away that she runs into a wall. Ouch!
Cameraman - Please come out of the lift - what is the problem?
MEP - Such impertinence!
Cameraman - Why is it impertinence?
MEP - *runs away*
Hans-Peter Martin must be tout unpopular in the comedy Parliament.
But so is Paul Van Buitenen
Try also this. Good to see that they have time on their hands.
Vaguely charming though.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
por qué?
The Department of Education "Children, Schools and Families" has taken to flying the EU flag over its Westminster HQ.
We can't think of any other Government deparments who do this every day, and we were wondering what had prompted this burst of europatriotic fervour.
Is Ed Balls trying to make up for his sins against European integration? (have a look at his pamphlet on "euro-monetarism" to get an idea of what he used to say)
Or is it just because the department of "Children, Schools and Families" doesn't have to deal with Brussels as much as some others do? Does dealing with Brussels on a regular basis make you less keen on it?
Answers on a postcard.
We can't think of any other Government deparments who do this every day, and we were wondering what had prompted this burst of europatriotic fervour.
Is Ed Balls trying to make up for his sins against European integration? (have a look at his pamphlet on "euro-monetarism" to get an idea of what he used to say)
Or is it just because the department of "Children, Schools and Families" doesn't have to deal with Brussels as much as some others do? Does dealing with Brussels on a regular basis make you less keen on it?
Answers on a postcard.
Corbett contra mundum
Hopeless MEP Richard Corbett continues to struggle with the Irish no vote on his blog (no comments please).
He writeth:
Suppose the future reform of the House of Lords required the approval of every county. Suppose that all county councils agree the reform, except Herefordshire, which votes "No".
What should be done? Should reform be abandoned because one county votes against? Should Herefordshire be asked to vote again, in light of the support of every other county? Should Herefordshire's concerns be identified, if possible, and an attempt made at a compromise?
That is the situation facing European coutries, [sic] who negotiated a package of reforms to the EU, which one country has rejected, while most if not all of the others continue to support it. Reform of the EU needs approval from every single member state.
So in Corbett's vision the EU is a bit like... a single country?
National governments are going to become like... county councils?
Thanks for clearing that up. At least it's nice to know what the direction of travel is.
He's also put his finger neatly on the reason why a federal EU can never work - people just don't feel part of the same demos, and won't accept being outvoted in this way.
Once again Richard, we salute you.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Why does the NHS need an embassy in Brussels?
People used to think that Health was one of the few remaining areas where the EU didn't have much control.
Think again. The NHS Confederation now has an office in Brussels and six people working full time lobbying the EU.
According to their website they are dealing with everything from working time to emissions trading, green vehicles and "eHealth".
They churn out briefings and hold receptions:
The Office is organising a Reception in the European Parliament, Brussels, on Wednesday 10 September. The event will be hosted by a cross-party group of MEPs. High-level representatives of the NHS will attend and senior delegates from the EU Institutions and key stakeholders will be invited. The event will promote the Office and its work to the wider Brussels community and will present an opportunity for NHS colleagues to discuss EU developments impacting on the NHS.
We can't decide. Which is worse: that the NHS is wasting cash on on Brussels lobbying, or that they feel that they need to?
Think again. The NHS Confederation now has an office in Brussels and six people working full time lobbying the EU.
According to their website they are dealing with everything from working time to emissions trading, green vehicles and "eHealth".
They churn out briefings and hold receptions:
The Office is organising a Reception in the European Parliament, Brussels, on Wednesday 10 September. The event will be hosted by a cross-party group of MEPs. High-level representatives of the NHS will attend and senior delegates from the EU Institutions and key stakeholders will be invited. The event will promote the Office and its work to the wider Brussels community and will present an opportunity for NHS colleagues to discuss EU developments impacting on the NHS.
We can't decide. Which is worse: that the NHS is wasting cash on on Brussels lobbying, or that they feel that they need to?
Its a conspiracy! Its a conspiracy!
Says France's Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet.
EU Observer reports that Jouyet thinks that the Irish no vote was masterminded by sinister american neocons.
"Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."
Yes dear, its all a big conspiracy...
but where do the CIA, Mossad and the invisible lizard men fit in?
EU Observer reports that Jouyet thinks that the Irish no vote was masterminded by sinister american neocons.
"Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."
Yes dear, its all a big conspiracy...
but where do the CIA, Mossad and the invisible lizard men fit in?
EU = environmentally unfriendly
Some people will excuse the most disastrous policy failures - as long as the "intentions" behind the policy were good.
They will explain away, cover up or distort the evidence of failure in order to protect good intentions from the harsh winds of reality.
The EU's environmental policies seem to be a particular case in point.
Example: being Emissions Trading obsessives we seized on this recent study from MIT with glee. But sadly, it is complete tripe.
They say that the scheme has been a great success:
"Verified emissions in 2005-06 were lower than EU emissions in 2002-04, even after allowing for plausible upward bias in the pre-2005 data."
"In a preliminary but detailed analysis of this data, Ellerman and Buchner (forthcoming in Environmental and Resource Economics) concluded that a reasonable estimate of the reduction in CO2 emissions attributable to the EU ETS lies between 50 and 100 million tons for each year, or between 2.5% and 5% from what emissions would have been without the EU ETS."
Why oh why are people still claiming that the first phase of ETS was a success? It clearly wasn't.
Firstly, there are simply no comparable numbers for 2002 or 2004. The data just doesn't exist, so no meaningful comparison can be made. For a supposedly academic paper to make such a glaring error is unforgivable.
Secondly, if you look at the numbers that do exist, it is crystal clear that emissions have gone up under the EU scheme - just under 2% up. EU industry now emits 37 million tonnes more Co2 than when the scheme started in 2005. That's the equivalent of the whole industrial output of Sweden and Ireland put together.
One response is to say that emissions would have gone up even more without ETS. But that quickly leads into an economist's fantasy world where more or less any number can be plucked out of the air by changing the baseline assumptions. Why say 50 million or 100 million tonnes? Why not virtually any other number?
The EU is a certainly world leader in talking about climate change.
But its record is poor: the failing ETS; a pro-biofuels policy which is good for the CAP but bad for the planet; a fishing policy the EU Commissioner responsible admits is "immoral", and a common agricultural policy which still promotes industrial farming. Such massive policy failures drown out the individual efforts of millions of people who have diligently remembered to turn down the thermostat and not leave the telly on standby.
But hey, you can never do the wrong thing as long as your intentions are good, right?
They will explain away, cover up or distort the evidence of failure in order to protect good intentions from the harsh winds of reality.
The EU's environmental policies seem to be a particular case in point.
Example: being Emissions Trading obsessives we seized on this recent study from MIT with glee. But sadly, it is complete tripe.
They say that the scheme has been a great success:
"Verified emissions in 2005-06 were lower than EU emissions in 2002-04, even after allowing for plausible upward bias in the pre-2005 data."
"In a preliminary but detailed analysis of this data, Ellerman and Buchner (forthcoming in Environmental and Resource Economics) concluded that a reasonable estimate of the reduction in CO2 emissions attributable to the EU ETS lies between 50 and 100 million tons for each year, or between 2.5% and 5% from what emissions would have been without the EU ETS."
Why oh why are people still claiming that the first phase of ETS was a success? It clearly wasn't.
Firstly, there are simply no comparable numbers for 2002 or 2004. The data just doesn't exist, so no meaningful comparison can be made. For a supposedly academic paper to make such a glaring error is unforgivable.
Secondly, if you look at the numbers that do exist, it is crystal clear that emissions have gone up under the EU scheme - just under 2% up. EU industry now emits 37 million tonnes more Co2 than when the scheme started in 2005. That's the equivalent of the whole industrial output of Sweden and Ireland put together.
One response is to say that emissions would have gone up even more without ETS. But that quickly leads into an economist's fantasy world where more or less any number can be plucked out of the air by changing the baseline assumptions. Why say 50 million or 100 million tonnes? Why not virtually any other number?
The EU is a certainly world leader in talking about climate change.
But its record is poor: the failing ETS; a pro-biofuels policy which is good for the CAP but bad for the planet; a fishing policy the EU Commissioner responsible admits is "immoral", and a common agricultural policy which still promotes industrial farming. Such massive policy failures drown out the individual efforts of millions of people who have diligently remembered to turn down the thermostat and not leave the telly on standby.
But hey, you can never do the wrong thing as long as your intentions are good, right?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Swedish legal opinion: Lisbon Treaty same as Constitution
The Swedish Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) – the Swedish expert body on constitutional matters - was commissioned by the Swedish government to give its opinion on the most appropriate way to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. It has concluded that the
The reason: they say the Lisbon Treaty is “essentially equivalent to the Constitution”.
In fact, to save effort and avoid repetition the Council just quotes the opinion it gave on the EU Constitution back in 2005.
Ha!
ooops
For reasons best known to themselves, the curious Finnish magazine "Eurometri" decided to take a punt on the result of the Irish referednum.
The paper, which has landed today, carries a somewhat innacurate cartoon celebrating the Irish "yes" vote.
Erm...
Why does the EU man have a weird beard?
In fact, come to think of it, isnt' whole thing arguably as mad as a box of frogs?
The paper, which has landed today, carries a somewhat innacurate cartoon celebrating the Irish "yes" vote.
Erm...
Why does the EU man have a weird beard?
In fact, come to think of it, isnt' whole thing arguably as mad as a box of frogs?
badly timed
This "Friends of Europe" briefing paper came out on the day of the Irish referendum.
Its all about who is going to have which of the plum new jobs under the treaty.
Hubris, anyone?
Its all about who is going to have which of the plum new jobs under the treaty.
Hubris, anyone?
Why dan hannan is wrong
We hate to say it, because he has spent a long time in the belly of the beast, and knows it well - but we think Dan Hannan is wrong about there not being a second Irish referendum.
He is right that it is a terrible gamble for Cowen:
A second "No" would not just delegitimise the Lisbon Treaty; it would delegitimise the EU leadership that had required the second referendum; and it would condemn the Irish government that had sided with Europe's élites against its own people.
And he is right that they could get most of the treaty by the back door - be it by decisions in the council, or via the "Croatian Gambit."
We also thought that that was the most likely way to side step the no vote - have a look at our briefing note from last week. But having soaked up the atmosphere at the European Council last week we are not so sure.
Consider these few points.
Firstly, they think they can win it. We are about to see a propaganda campaign of such ferocity you'd barely believe it. "They are going to throw the kitchen sink at us", warned one old hand at the European Council on Friday.
Secondly, they have gone slightly mad. Rather than sneak in via the back door, they are determined to smash down the front door and grab what they want. This is not rational, but it seems that it is what they are going to do. Partly to try and get back some legitimacy, partly because it has worked before, and partly because it is simpler and easier to agree than a complicated operation to chop up the treaty into bitesize chunks.
Thirdly, if it goes wrong, there is always a fallback plan.
First there was plan "A", the EU Constitution.
Then there was plan B, the strangely familiar looking "Lisbon Treaty".
Now there is plan C, a second referendum, but even if it goes wrong, they can just default to plan D - going down the stealthy route that Hannan expects.
And of course, they (apart from the absurdly europhile Cowen), don't really have much to lose. If there is a no vote the EU might be mildly is embarrassed again. So what?
But if they go for plan D now, and something goes wrong, then what then? Why use your emergency backup plan before you really have to?
It seems crazy. But they are so determined to have the Treaty, they just can't wait.
Why are they so keen? The most significant thing about the Constitution is that it's the first treaty to be self-amending. So there will be no need for any further treaties, and no opportunity to call for a referendum in future.
Referendums are the only device which managed to check the relentless march towards ever closer union. Once the voters are cut out of the loop, the process of political integration will be able to accelerate, and the pesky voters won't ever be able to get in the way again.
He is right that it is a terrible gamble for Cowen:
A second "No" would not just delegitimise the Lisbon Treaty; it would delegitimise the EU leadership that had required the second referendum; and it would condemn the Irish government that had sided with Europe's élites against its own people.
And he is right that they could get most of the treaty by the back door - be it by decisions in the council, or via the "Croatian Gambit."
We also thought that that was the most likely way to side step the no vote - have a look at our briefing note from last week. But having soaked up the atmosphere at the European Council last week we are not so sure.
Consider these few points.
Firstly, they think they can win it. We are about to see a propaganda campaign of such ferocity you'd barely believe it. "They are going to throw the kitchen sink at us", warned one old hand at the European Council on Friday.
Secondly, they have gone slightly mad. Rather than sneak in via the back door, they are determined to smash down the front door and grab what they want. This is not rational, but it seems that it is what they are going to do. Partly to try and get back some legitimacy, partly because it has worked before, and partly because it is simpler and easier to agree than a complicated operation to chop up the treaty into bitesize chunks.
Thirdly, if it goes wrong, there is always a fallback plan.
First there was plan "A", the EU Constitution.
Then there was plan B, the strangely familiar looking "Lisbon Treaty".
Now there is plan C, a second referendum, but even if it goes wrong, they can just default to plan D - going down the stealthy route that Hannan expects.
And of course, they (apart from the absurdly europhile Cowen), don't really have much to lose. If there is a no vote the EU might be mildly is embarrassed again. So what?
But if they go for plan D now, and something goes wrong, then what then? Why use your emergency backup plan before you really have to?
It seems crazy. But they are so determined to have the Treaty, they just can't wait.
Why are they so keen? The most significant thing about the Constitution is that it's the first treaty to be self-amending. So there will be no need for any further treaties, and no opportunity to call for a referendum in future.
Referendums are the only device which managed to check the relentless march towards ever closer union. Once the voters are cut out of the loop, the process of political integration will be able to accelerate, and the pesky voters won't ever be able to get in the way again.
Brace yourself for bullying and threats
Says Gene Kerrigan in the Irish Independent.
He didn't have to wait long. In the selfsame paper we have this garbage.
UKIP, Le Pen and the Tory eurosceptics could not care less about Ireland's future. They only want to use our referendum result to serve their misguided political goals, goals that never have -- and never will -- serve our interests.
Ah Le Pen - still being trotted out by the pros as if he had been leading the no campaign.
And there's more. Wolfgang Munchau turns nasty in the FT.
So within a couple of weeks, the chances of Ireland ending up outside the EU have turned from zero to a distinct possibility. The same goes for the Czech Republic, another potential non-ratifier. I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.
Oooooh! Mysterious and dark EU forces. Or utter balls more like. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of a good column.
The FT also went on a fishing expedition to find so people to say the no vote was bad for business. Herbert Hainer and Peter Löscher and Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer all have a go at the Irish decision. Ruttenstorfer says, "I am quite disappointed by the decision of the Irish people".
With that kind of attitude, lets hope they all go over to Ireland for the second referendum.
Amazingly Cowen is still insisting that no decision has been taken on a second referendum.
In reality the only question is whether to do it before or after Christmas.
He didn't have to wait long. In the selfsame paper we have this garbage.
UKIP, Le Pen and the Tory eurosceptics could not care less about Ireland's future. They only want to use our referendum result to serve their misguided political goals, goals that never have -- and never will -- serve our interests.
Ah Le Pen - still being trotted out by the pros as if he had been leading the no campaign.
And there's more. Wolfgang Munchau turns nasty in the FT.
So within a couple of weeks, the chances of Ireland ending up outside the EU have turned from zero to a distinct possibility. The same goes for the Czech Republic, another potential non-ratifier. I do not want to get into the legal details of how a country’s departure from the EU could be accomplished. Suffice it to say that it can be done within European law as long as there is political will.
Oooooh! Mysterious and dark EU forces. Or utter balls more like. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of a good column.
The FT also went on a fishing expedition to find so people to say the no vote was bad for business. Herbert Hainer and Peter Löscher and Wolfgang Ruttenstorfer all have a go at the Irish decision. Ruttenstorfer says, "I am quite disappointed by the decision of the Irish people".
With that kind of attitude, lets hope they all go over to Ireland for the second referendum.
Amazingly Cowen is still insisting that no decision has been taken on a second referendum.
In reality the only question is whether to do it before or after Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)