Chateau prices crash

The Independent reports that Former French President and architect of the EU Constitution Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is having difficulty selling his Chateau in the French interior (pictured) following an unfortunate collapse in the chateau property market this year.

With these EU missions Mr. Ambassador, you are really spoiling us

Nick Witney, the former Head of the European Defence Agency, has published an interesting report for the European Council on Foreign Relations on some of the shortcomings of the EU’s security and defence strategies. Chief amongst the problems, which were briefly mentioned in the Telegraph today, seems to be a series of planning failures of which the most “spectacularly amateurish” is the EU’s mission to Aceh in 2005 being funded by the personal credit cards of the advance party and by a loan from the entertainment allowance of the UK’s Ambassador in Jakarta.

He notes that: “the collective preference for declaring each operation an unqualified success has meant that many persistent failings, such as shortage of transport and inadequate communications, have been repeatedly ignored.” Apparently, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs Javier Solana has “often” been forced to ring round European Defence Ministers requesting loans of a single transplant plane or field surgeon.

He says that plans for a stronger EU defence policy should not be abandoned if the Lisbon Treaty fails to come into force – and that countries that wish to should push ahead to be allowed to do, though “nonplayers should not insist on a seat at the table”. He suggests a “sensible minimum requirement of spending at least 1% of GDP on defence”, which would mean currently, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta bowing out. A further basic test could be a minimum level of deployment on operations; he notes that if this were set even as low as 1% of military manpower, then Bulgaria, Cyprus and Greece would also fail to qualify.

Reading the paper it’s clear that based on current capabilities the EU member states are still expecting an all-out European Armageddon in a small forest somewhere in eastern Germany. Investment is massively concentrated in hardware unsuitable for the kind of missions the EU is currently involved in: the EU may have 10,000 tanks and 2,500 combat aircraft, but it lacks sufficient inter-EU communication links, helicopters, transports and surveillance drones. Greece, the EU country that spends most on its military as a proportion of GDP, has directed most of this into constructing Europe’s largest tank fleet in order to fend off the impending Turkish invasion…

Would it be fair to say Sarkozy’s aim to create a "single European defence policy" by the end of the year is looking a bit... out of reach? (even with the platform shoes)

Why did the Doha talks collapse?

Most news reports on the breakdown of Doha have focussed on the issue of so-called safeguard mechanisms as an explanation for failure. These mechanisms are designed to allow developing countries to protect their farmers from surges in imports. India, China and the US could not reach agreement on the issue.

The safeguard mechanisms are widely acknowledged to be a comparatively small part of the talks. So why have they been assigned such prominence? This is in part because media analysis, at least in the short-term, will generally tend to look at the more immediate factors for a given event. And it is certainly true that the issue of safeguard mechanisms was an important factor in the immediate term.

However, there are longer-term factors that offer a more useful explanation for the demise of Doha. Trade negotiations are inevitably based on reciprocity – large developing countries will quite reasonably expect significant commitments on market access from the developed world as the corollary to opening up their own markets.

Viewed in these terms, a large portion of the blame must be assigned to the EU.

From the start, the EU negotiating position has been characterised by a toxic combination of stinginess and inflexibility. During the Geneva talks, the EU did not make any new concessions on tariff reductions relative to the 2006 position. Last week, Mandelson attempted to spin that the EU had proposed reducing farm tariffs by 60% - up from the pre-existing offer of 54%, calling it a "a very considerable improvement on our own part." However, EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel and French Trade Minister Anne-Marie Idrac admitted that the offer was "nothing new" - the difference between the two figures was merely down to whether tropical products were included in the tariff cut calculations or not.

Even during this round of the talks, it was very unclear that Mandelson had a firm negotiating mandate from EU member states, let alone the ability to make any improved offer on market access. French Trade Minister Anne-Marie Idrac stated that the EU would refuse to compromise on opening its markets for farm goods: “We can’t go further; we won’t go further on agriculture and we expect more open market access from emerging countries”. The explicit threat from Nicolas Sarkozy to veto even the current deal went even further in undermining the credibility of Mandelson’s position. Combined with significant pressure being applied by politically important Irish farmers, these factors meant that the EU offer could never inspire much confidence amongst the other negotiating parties at the Doha talks.

Although the EU tried to spin that it was offering to reduce farm subsidies under the CAP, this was simply untrue. EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel gave categorical assurances to farmers that the negotiating text under discussion at the WTO talks would not affect EU farm payments now or in the future. "The EU has complete freedom to do what it wants with single-farm payments from the Common Agricultural Policy [CAP] before and after 2013 under the current negotiating text," said Ms Boel's spokesman. The Commission confirmed to EU ministers that the proposed Doha text would have no impact on the levels of EU payments to farmers because of reform of the CAP in 2003, which reduced production-linked subsidies to farmers – the type of farm support the Doha proposals refer to.

Given the intransigence of the EU on market access and farm subsidies, it's understandable that large developing countries were unwilling to take a more accommodating stance on opening their own markets. India and China would have no doubt taken a less defensive approach to the question of safeguard mechanisms if they felt they were being given a fair deal on market access from the developed countries, especially the EU, the largest of these markets. In the event, these countries knew they were being sold a pup – so it’s hardly surprising that they were unwilling to roll over and do as they were told when the safeguard mechanisms came up for discussion.

The question of safeguard mechanisms was merely the final straw that led to the collapse of talks. The real underlying reasons go far deeper.

Skewed polling? Ask the Commission

The Irish government has had a lot to say this weekend about Open Europe and our poll questions, but nothing at all to say about the results of the poll.

In an effort to present the whole thing as "extraordinarily skewed" (his words), Europe Minister Dick Roche went to great pains to deny that it had ever been reported that Sarko had said there should be a second referendum (See here, here and here to jog your memory of the Europe-wide coverage of his comments).

Just in case anyone is interested in a poll that really was biased - how about the Commission's recent Eurobarometer survey on Ireland's reasons for voting no?

As the Telegraph's Brassneck blog reminds us, the Commission, refusing to make public the full results of the poll (unlike OE which published its poll in full from the outset), briefed a handful of journalists that 40% of those who had voted no did so because they didn't understand the Treaty.

The papers then ran stories with headlines like this in the Times: “Irish voters failed to understand the Lisbon Treaty”, citing a figure from the EU Commission stating that, amongst No voters, “40 per cent blamed the fact that they did not understand the treaty.”

But when the Commission finally did release the poll in full, on 20 June - after the crucial EU summit had concluded - it emerged that it had lied to the press, and that the number of people saying they hadn't understood the Treaty was in fact 22%.

Why did the Commission arbitrarily double the number of people saying they didn't understand the Treaty, making the Irish appear ignorant? And why wasn't it followed up in the press?

So the European Commission spends millions of euros in taxpayers' money (this year its Eurobarometer budget is €5.5m) fielding polls whose results and publication it is free to manipulate. That's fine. It's when think-tanks in London spend a couple of thousand euros of private funds to ask voters how they feel about the possibility of a second referendum that you have to start accusing people of "outside interference".

Makes perfect sense.

Second referendum? Don't go there

We've commissioned the leading Irish pollsters Red C to look at how people in Ireland feel about the idea of a second referendum

It looks like they would be made to force a second vote. The key numeros are below:

- 71% oppose a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Only 24% are in favour.

- Of those who expressed an opinion, 62% said they would vote "no" in a second referendum, compared to 38% who would vote "yes".

- 17% of those who voted "yes" in the recent referendum would vote "no" in a second referendum, while only 6% of those who voted "no" would now vote "yes". Perhaps most significantly of all, those who did not vote last time would vote more than two-to-one against in a second referendum: 57% would vote "no" and 26% would vote "yes".

- 67% agreed with the statement that "politicians in Europe do not respect Ireland's no vote". Only 28% disagreed.

- 61% disagreed with the statement that "If all of the other 26 EU countries ratify the Treaty in their parliaments then Ireland has to change its mind and support the Treaty." Only 32% agreed.

- 53% said they would be less likely to vote for Brian Cowen at the next election if he called a second referendum. In particular, 43% of Fianna Fail voters said they would be less likely to vote for him.

The full results of the poll are available at:

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/redc.pdf

Europe: its part in his downfall

Perhaps the next Labour leader will take a different line on Europe now that Brown is so clearly leaving...

Harsh? Premature? Perhaps. #

But poor old Gordon Brown does look pretty finished this morning.



Its interesting to reflect on the things that have dragged him down.

Even in our most boggled-eyed moments we wouldn't claim that it was the EU issue 'wot did it. But Europe - which has ended so many promising premierships - definitely had a role.

During Brown's honeymoon period, the first issue that drove a wedge between Brown and his carefully-cultivated tabloid allies was the referendum. Back when the Mail, Sun and Express still thought he was great, the first issue they fell out over was the "new" Treaty.

And even in Brown's crucial first days, as he tried to distance himself from the previous regime, it was a problem. He talked about a "new era" of "listening and learning" - but then had to go on TV and say people would not be given the vote they had been promised.

If there is a single thing wrong with Brown's image it is that the guy is seen as somone who is out of touch - "doesn't get it" - and can't listen or respond in the way that the ideologically supple Tony Blair could.

And the referendum issue was the first clear example of that.

blimey

Hard... to... say this... but George Monbiot is right. (It had to happen eventually)



He points out:

A fair account of our carbon emissions would include those we import minus those we export: a balance that can only worsen in a post-industrial economy... Given that we are outsourcing some of our greenhouse gases, you might think it makes sense to outsource our carbon cuts as well.

But... while the emissions we export are certain and verifiable, the cuts we buy through carbon credits are often fraudulent. For instance, as the writer Oliver Tickell documents, 96% of the carbon credits from hydroelectric dam construction were issued after construction had begun: the dams would have been built without the carbon market, so no additional cuts have been achieved. About 30% of all carbon credits come from the sale of trifluoromethane cuts by Chinese and Indian companies making refrigeration gases. Many of them are still producing this pollutant only because they make so much money from cleaning it up: the carbon market pays them 47 times more for these cuts than the gas costs to remove.

However, all that said, Monbiot then manages to get through the whole article without once mentioning the origin of the Emissions Trading Scheme (hint: it's a large organisation based in Brussels).

It seems that in bien pensant circles there is still quite an unwillingness to criticise the EU.

For example we were having a chat with the head of a big NGO a while back.

Asked why he didn't do more to criticise the EU's trade policies, he said that while he passionately hated the policy, "We don't want to criticise the EU too much because it's basically a good thing".

At some point that protective shielding of the EU is going to break down. The well-meaning world is going to realise that Brussels is running the show now, and the EU doesn't always listen.

Perhaps Mr Monbiot will go to Brussels and be told to parlez à la main parce que le visage n'écoute pas.

Perhaps then things will change.

We are coming to kick your ass in an environmentally friendly way

According to a Parliamentary Answer:

Bob Ainsworth Minister of State (Armed Forces)

The EU environmental regulation that places specific requirements on the vehicles of the UK armed forces is Regulation (EC) No 715/2007. This regulation establishes common technical requirements for the type approval of motor vehicles and replacement parts with regard to their emissions. In addition, it lays down rules for in-service conformity, durability of pollution control devices, on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems, measurement of fuel consumption and accessibility of vehicle repair and maintenance information. It applies to vehicles whose mass does not exceed 2,610 kg.

It is our policy to comply with all relevant UK, EU and overseas legislation and, where granted specific exemptions from legislation, standards and arrangements are introduced that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation.

incroyable

The Times: Margaret Beckett tipped for a Cabinet comeback

Perhaps not to the Foreign Office, we suspect.

Some highlights from the crazy years.

A moment of honesty

from Peter Skinner MEP.

On his website page "HOW EUROPE HELPS"

Apparently

"There are no items to display"




Cheers for the newsflash mate.

Why Obama is bypassing Brussels

Washington blogger and think-tanker Steve Clemons notes that Barack Obama will not be visiting Brussels on his tour of Europe.

He reckons that “what he is saying to Europeans, symbolically, is that their capital does not quite rank”, and suggests the omission of the EU’s institutional heart from Obama’s itinerary is a product of the candidate’s supposed inexperience and rumoured lack of understanding of international affairs.

But perhaps there is another explanation for Obama’s avoiding Brussels.

What is the core message of the Obama campaign? Vitality, dynamism, change, and popular empowerment are words that immediately spring to mind. But the way the EU is currently going is the polar opposite of these things.

‘Brussels’ as a concept just seems off-message for Obama’s brand. It’s pretty difficult to imagine him giving a rousing speech in front of the Berlaymont, or attending a photo call with the likes of Hans Gert Pottering.

Africa starves, Mandelson spins

Excellent piece on AFP today, describing how Peter Mandelson attempted to spin his way out of the embarrassing situation of the EU not offering any new concessions on tariff reductions at the Doha trade talks.

Mandelson yesterday ‘unveiled’ what appeared to be a more generous offer on market access to the EU, proposing to reduce farm tariffs by 60 per cent - up from the existing offer of 54 per cent. Mandelson presented his offer as "a very considerable improvement on our own part."

That was quickly dismissed by Brazil however as “mere propaganda”, with Foreign Minister Celso Amorim describing it as "meaningless... purely statistic gimmickry."

Mandelson’s position then began to unravel completely, with even fellow EU commissioner Mariann Fischer-Boel (heading up Agriculture) admitting that her colleague’s offer was "nothing new".

Next, French trade minister Anne-Marie Idrac waded in, helpfully explaining that the difference between the two figures was merely down to whether tropical products were included in the tariff cut calculations or not. "Was there new progress, new percentages? The answer is no. Peter Mandelson this morning had clarified... what technical discussions have come up with – nothing more, nothing less," Idrac said. (In the run-up to this week's negotiations, the French government had already stated very clearly that it would accept no further concessions on the European farm support regime.)

Mandelson, by this point firmly on the defensive, was forced to concede that the 60 percent proposal was actually a "reiteration" of the EU's existing position. "The more we clarify, the clearer it becomes exactly what we are offering in this round," he told journalists.

Thanks for the clarification Peter…

It would also be interesting to have some more clarity on whether the EU is still proposing that 8 per cent of its tariff lines be given special treatment - ie. a lower rate of tariff reduction compared to other goods. The EU position on so-called ‘sensitive’ goods was one of the key issues that led to the collapse of talks in 2006 (the US was calling for 1 per cent of tariff lines to be exempted). But according to Japanese reports, Tokyo and Brussels have already agreed to ‘work together’ to maintain the 8% exemption in this round of talks.

Many of the products deemed sensitive in the EU are those exported by the developing and least-developed countries. The Commission for Africa has noted that “if only two percent of agricultural tariff lines are designated as sensitive… three quarters of global welfare gains will be lost.” The US, Canada and the Cairns Group also separately analysed the EU’s proposal, in the weeks after 28 October 2006, finding that designating 8% of goods as “sensitive” would effectively block all exports of interest to developing countries in the EU market.

Unfortunately, yesterday’s farce suggests the Commission is more interested in propaganda than in proposing real pro-development solutions on trade.

Perhaps this emphasis on spin is a tactic designed to pre-empt a breakdown in the talks this week, allowing the EU to shift the blame onto other negotiating parties and divert media attention away from its own intransigence. This was exactly the strategy that was followed last time talks broke down in 2006. But failure this week would be far more serious, and would all but kill off Doha.

Keep digging...

From PA we learn that Sarkozy has managed to fit a hair between the concept of a "referendum" and "giving people the opportunity to give their opinion".

"I never said Ireland had to organise a new referendum," he said.

"I said that at some stage or another the Irish had to be given the opportunity to give their opinion, they had to give their opinion. I never said there had to be a referendum. I didn't say on what question there would be a vote. I did not, in any way, meddle in Irish domestic affairs."

No, not meddling at all. We're sure Dublin was always intended to be his first stop as EU President...

Big Bad Mr. Bruni

Amusing analysis from the Irish Sunday Independent:

After the Lisbon Treaty was voted down, by the only electorate in Europe allowed vote on it, Mr Sarkozy announced he was coming over to talk to us. It's like when a schoolteacher (Brian Cowen) loses control of the class (us) and the headmaster (Big Bad Sarkozy) comes stomping down the corridor, eyes ablaze beneath his fearsome brow.

Mr Cowen, already in flitters after such a comprehensive referendum defeat, put a brave face on it. His glassy smile hid whatever obscenities he might be muttering. Bloody hell -- this is all I need, a bollocking from Mr Bruni.

In a functioning democracy, after a high turnout and a decisive rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Cowen had a democratic duty. That duty was to go to Brussels, to meet his fellow leaders and represent the views of his electorate. That involved saying something like the following.

"Sorry lads, the Irish voted down the Lisbon Treaty. As you know, that was not my wish, but it's now the official position of my country and as a democrat I'll represent that position with total commitment. Under EU rules, the Lisbon Treaty is now dead."

When ignorant gobshites raised the threat of a "two-speed Europe", it was Cowen's duty to stalwartly defend the unity and principles of the EU. When they insinuated we would be "punished", or somehow removed from the EU, it was his duty to demand an immediate retraction of the threat and an apology.

Anything less was a betrayal of his public duty -- and a betrayal of the supposed principles of the EU project itself.

A lecture in Europe

Disconcerting news from Agence Europe: apparently the French EU Presidency are planning to create a “University of Europe” in... you guessed it... Strasbourg.

Separate to the other controversial idea for a European Institute of Technology, this one would be “run by the European Commission” (!), and would “have its own European vision, offering training in the history of Europe and the European spirit. "

Apparently, "The idea reunites three fundamental principles: the spirit of Europe, Europe's place in international competition and building a Europe of Knowledge. It would target adults with significant professional experience who are looking to get re-trained or deepen their knowledge, or for students wanting to understand the history of Europe and the European spirit.”

In other words, the plan is to brainwash train future generations of EU bureaucrats in the ‘benefits’ of EU integration. And all this with the help of EU grants and/or grants from member states. As we’ve said before, surely a more sensible use of taxpayers' money would be to spend it improving the universities we already have?

Mots sages

Rossa Fanning, Lawyer and Lecturer at University College Dublin makes a good argument in an interview with French daily Libération today:

“It is convenient for Nicolas Sarkozy to call for a second referendum, but it shows that he, like the majority of other European leaders, has not understood the profound reasons for the Irish no vote, nor the concerns that this choice expressed. To twist their arm and try to make them go back on their decision is counter-productive because, in their overwhelming majority, those who voted no do not regret having rejected the treaty. The campaign was intense and the participation massive. Furthermore, this no vote came within the continuity of those expressed three years earlier by the French and the Dutch. Public opinion, in several European countries, is hostile to closer integration. Personally, I regret that as I voted yes. But the EU cannot disrespect the sovereign choice of the Irish people, not without arousing in them a lasting sense of resentment. After the French no vote, nobody asked them to go back on their decision by making them vote again on the same text. But we’ll do it with the Irish just because there are less of them and because this time they are the only ones who have had their say on the treaty through universal suffrage?”

Arcane Parliament

PA informs us that following the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the UK, the implementing legislation will be printed... on goatskin.

"Parliamentary officials confirmed later that a goatskin version of the EU Amendment Act would be prepared, and kept in the UK.

The practice of Acts of Parliament and other important documents being printed on vellum has existed since the 15th century. Both Magna Carta and Charles I's death warrant were produced on skin parchment.

There have been several efforts over recent decades to move to paper records, which would be less expensive and potentially save the lives of several goats a year.

They have been successfully resisted by traditionalists."

With these plans out in the open, it's suddenly becomes clear who the first victims of Lisbon will be..

The French must be made to vote again

The polls clearly show that the French people regret the decision they made last year.

They didn't know what they were doing... They didn't vote on the issues, but on a whole bunch of unrelated factors...

Given one country with just a tiny proportion of the EU population is now holding up all the other member states (on trade, enlargement, economic reform) surely it is only fair to ask them to vote again... and choose a new President?

Bad prediction

Anand Menon opens his newish book on the EU with a quote from Lord Dilhorne, speaking in 1962:

“I venture to suggest that the vast majority of men and women in this country will never directly feel the impact of the community made law at all.”

Not quite how things have worked out.

Old Tory poster shock

Having a look at the amazing Oxford archive of old Tory posters.

It's fair to say that their line on the EU has moved on at least a bit over the years.

These two are for the euro elections of 1984.





And this number is from the 1992 Election. The only difference from today's Government line is that now they say three million jobs are at risk rather than two and a half.



By 1997 things had changed...



Which is (basically) where they are now. The challenge for them now is to move the policy on and come up with an equivalently good encapsulation.

PS - there are also some groovy posters for MEPs.

Newton Dunn (now a lib dem) has been at it since 1979.



And how about Robert Atkins' poster from his 'run' for a seat in the 1974 General Election:



Groovy! Didn't that little runner logo used to be on packets of 80s dextro energy sweets?

In fact is it running or falling over? You decide.

Austrians to get a referendum?

A post on Irish Election notes that Europe and the referendum could become a big issue in the Austrian election in September. Could that throw up another speed bump for the seemingly undead treaty?

Probably not. The Socialists' flirtation with a referendum has a tactical whiff about it. If they get in Hannan's law will kick in and they will drop the idea.

But here's where the parties stand anyway, according to the Irish Election post:

Conservatives: We don’t need any referendum, the national parliaments were elected, so they shall deal with Lisbon. Pro EU.

The Greens: Not supporting a national referendum, but a EU-wide referendum. Pro EU.

Social Democrats: Formerly same position as Conservatives. Now supporting a national referendum in case of major changes on Lisbon or a new contract. Still, Pro EU.

FPOE: Strongly longing for a national referendum. Contra EU.

BZOE (”Alliance for the future of Austria”, Haider/Westenthaler): Strongly longing for a national referendum. Contra EU. This party emerged from a Haider-powered FPOE split-off in 2005.

Nothing ever changes

Here's a list of the Government's main negotiating objectives in Europe:

(a) maintenance of the authority of national governments and Parliaments;
(b) democratic control of Community business;
(c) common policies must recognise the need for national governments to attain their economic, industrial and regional objectives;
(d) reform of the Common Agricultural Policy;
(e) the development of a Community energy policy compatible with national interests;
(f) enlargement of the Community.

This is, as you may have guessed, a list from 1977

A likely story

Russia says Czech oil supply cut "not political"

Ha! Those guys will say anything!

That's a new one

The europhiles are becoming increasingly unhinged as they seek new reasons to explain away the Irish no vote.

This fella blames - amongst other things - the smoking ban and the Irish Civil War.

Er-

Why not astrology or bad feng shui?

The EU needs a facelift

Outrageous claims in the Indie:

"Recent photos of the EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, looking remarkably fresh-faced have sparked rumours that he may have had plastic surgery, with one commentator saying it "looks like he's overdosed on Botox". "I'd say that he's had a chemical facial peel, and he's having regular Botox. There also looks to be some sort of filler in his cheeks," said Dr Lorraine Ishak of Transform Plastic Surgery clinics."

"The famously image-conscious politician has been looking much more youthful of late, which surgeons believe could be down to a variety of procedures. It is thought that Botox jabs have softened his wrinkles; chemical peels have improved the texture of his skin and artificial fillers have fattened up his sagging cheeks. A spokesman for Mr Mandelson denied that he had undergone surgery."

In other, slightly less trivial news, the EU is ripping itself apart in public as Sarkozy tries to back out of the trade deal which he signed up to previously.



In reality the existing EU WTO trade deal proposal is pathetically small, not frighteningly big. Let's review the facts:

- Overall, poor countries (those like Ethiopia with a GDP per capita of under £5,000 a year) face an EU tariff of 5 percent on average. This compares with an average tariff of 2.9 percent for middle income countries like Botswana (with a GDP per capita of between £5,000 and £15,000), and an average tariff of just 1.6 percent for the world’s richest countries, such as Japan.

- Some of the world’s poorest countries face even higher EU trade barriers. For example, Malawi pays an average tax of 12 percent on its exports to the EU, despite the average person having to live on less than £100 a year. Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland pay a tax of over 20 percent on their exports to the EU. Bolivia and Ecuador pay a tax of over 26 percent. This is because the goods which are most heavily taxed by the EU tend to be the goods which businesses in developing countries can produce at much lower prices than their Western competitors.

- Food tariffs are extremely high: 173% on lamb, 150% on garlic, 149% on beef, 134% on mushrooms, 118% on bananas, 114% on sugar, 103% on milk and 101% on rice.

- A study from Oxford Economic Forecasting for Open Europe found that global trade liberalisation could increase African GDP by 5.4%.

- The EU’s overall tariff rate is 2.4 percent compared to just under 1.8 percent in the US. Since the early 1990s the EU has been falling further and further behind the US.

- The cost of living, particularly food has gone up dramatically within the last year. Global food prices have jumped almost 50 percent in the past year, according to FAO.

- According to an OECD estimate for 2006, the CAP costs the EU 125 billion euros a year in higher prices and added taxes. The report also estimated that food in the EU is on average 20% above the world price.

- This hits the poor hardest because the bottom fifth of households in the UK spend 16% of their income on food - double the proportion spent by the richest fifth (7.5%)

- According to the report from Oxford Economic Forecasting, trade liberalisation will result in GDP gains for the EU of over €200 billion. In the UK, that’s an extra £1,500 a year for a household of four. According to the same report, scrapping the CAP and reforming tariffs could make the bottom 10% of earners £437 a year per person better off.

Leaving the rational arguments for a better deal aside, it is interesting the the people who always bang on about a "strong united Europe" with a "single foreign policy" are perfectly happy to tear the EU apart when it suits them. In terms of Britain's own trade policy, it's like being permanently shackled to a madman.

Finnishing line

As is now traditional, France has adorned the Justus Lipsius building in Brussels with a bunch of stuff to mark their Presidency.

The French effort consists of a giant globe covered in stripes representing the flags of the different member states, reflected in a giant mirror. But they have managed to get the Finnish one wrong.

Usually a blue cross on a white background, the French have inverted the colours so that it is white on a blue background. According to Coulisses de Bruxelles, the Finnish are, well - cross.

How times change

Then...

"Galileo remains a civil programme under civil control. This has repeatedly been confirmed by the EU Transport Council; most recently in its October 2006 Council Conclusions."

- Stephen Ladyman, then UK Transport minister, last year

Now...

"The European Parliament in Strasbourg approved by 502 votes to 83 the military use of the European Union's Galileo satellite."

- Report from Deutsche Welle

No more votes for the plebs

The torrent of anti-democratic vitriol continues to flow from the offices of the Irish Times.

Today a piece by Ruth Barrington on "Was holding referendum on Lisbon Treaty really necessary?"

While in a democracy one should never discount minority views, the outcome of the Lisbon referendum does raise questions about Ireland's constitutional status as a representative democracy.

Er... which minority? The one that had 53% of the vote in the referendum?

We now know the dangers for Ireland and our partners in Europe of being the only country to hold a referendum on a highly technical treaty such as Lisbon.

Perhaps we can help on that front... according to the polls, if there had been referendums everywhere, 16 countries would have said no... then you'd not be on your own.

Another consequence of the use of the referendum in situations where it is not clear why people are voting is a growing perception across Europe that the Irish are disengaging from the European Union.

Have the people lost touch with the EU? Or could it - gulp - be the other way round...?



After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Very interesting piece in the economist

On "Europe's Tory nightmare"

The Economists man in Brux writes:

"federalists have their mirror-opposites in Britain. Eurosceptic hardliners dream that Britain could negotiate a nice free-trade pact with the EU, like a giant Norway or Switzerland (but without as much fish or cheese). The odds are still against Britain walking out. But the country has changed in ways that Brussels underestimates."

Yup, lets just have a look at the graph again...

Net % saying EU is a "good thing" minus "bad thing"

It's like he's psychic

Have stumbled upon this letter in the Telegraph from Lord Pearson - dated March 2005:

(i.e. before the French and Dutch no votes)

Sir - Your leading article (Mar 29) may be wrong to hope that France votes "No" to the proposed EU Constitution. If it does, Brussels is likely to respond by setting up another inter-governmental conference, "listening to the people" of course, which would render our own referendum redundant.

That IGC will then produce a new treaty, subtly achieving the constitution's aims, upon which we will not be granted a referendum, but which Parliament will rubber-stamp as usual.

Who needs a crystal ball when you understand how the EU political class think?