really interesting post

...from the head of policy at the environment agency - on his amazingly candid blog Bacon Butty

why we still need NATO

EU = shambles

Also, when the "EU" force does finally get there are the Chadians really going to be fooled into thinking that this isn't a thinly disguised French mission? When they are all speaking French? We cautiously predict that they might see through that...

EPAs in chaos

The ODI look at the mess over what exactly the EU has agreed with African countries.

Looks like little more than an agreement to come to an agreement.

Fantastic

Hans Martin Tillack has won his case at the European Court of Human Rights, having been given extremely rough justice by the EU anti-fraud office and the European Court of Justice.

No wonder the EU want to supplant the role of the ECHR...

signing up without reservation

Ha. As well as noting that the red lines are not met, the European Scrutiny Committee have put the Constitutional Treaty under their scrutiny reserve, meaning that ministers are not supposed to sign it until Parliament has at least had a chance to look at it.

Will Ministers listen? Unlikely.

They "override" the scrutiny reserve constantly - making a mockery of any attempt to even look at the vast flood of EU legislation going through Parliament on the nod. So it's unlikely to stop ministers jetting off to their taxpayer funded jolly in Lisbon and Brussels.

A bit of a problem for the FCO

The EUobserver reports that EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini has announced plans to further harmonise rules on the processing of asylum applications and the treatment of asylum seekers across the EU.

He released a report which criticised seven EU countries - Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK - for not properly applying the EU's minimum set of rights to applicants held in detention centres, even though EU rules do not allow such exemptions. As a result Frattini said, "I intend to propose amendments to the 2003 directive in order to limit the discretion allowed". He specifically referred to further harmonisation of the level and form of reception conditions, access to employment, health care, free movement rights and identification and care of vulnerable persons."

That's very interesting, because under the final deal on the constitutional treaty the UK is not able to opt out of amendments to existing justice and home affairs legislation without opting out of the original legislation - one of several ways in which the UK opt out (in operation since Amsterdam) would be undermined by the "new" treaty

So if Frattini proposes to build on the Asylum Procedures Directive or the Reception Conditions Directive then the UK would in future no longer be able to pick and choose. It would have to opt in - or be thrown out of pervious agreements it has chosen to opt into.

There is also a philosophical question about the whole thing. Frattini said that "Creating a level playing field in the area of reception conditions is a priority for the commission". Do voters in the accept that they will not be able to vote to change the rules on these issues if it would undermine the idea of a "level playing field"? As the EU moves into increasingly contentious fields (and moves further and further away from any kind of mooring in public consent) these questions will become increasingly acute.

It never just rains...

The rows over Party funding and missing data CDs may blow over fairly soon if fortune starts to favour Gordon Brown – although this is by no means certain.

But along with Northern Rock, a more enduring problem with the potential to hole the long-term reputation of the Government below the water line is Europe. Parliamentary ratification – scheduled for early next year – would be a tortuous, drawn-out process. In this light, today’s report from the European Scrutiny Committee is yet more bad news for Brown. A few extracts below:

On the lack of opportunity for parliamentary oversight…

“We again recall that as recently as June of this year the European Council not only emphasised the “crucial importance of reinforcing communications with the European citizens … and involving them in permanent dialogue” but also stated that this would be “particularly important during the upcoming IGC and ratification processes”. Such statements now ring hollow, and we reiterate our earlier comment that the process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached.”

The ‘red line’ on tax was a distraction…

“In our view, control of tax and social security was never seriously threatened. The previous Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe contained no proposals to move to QMV in relation to tax.”

On why the UK’s protocol on the Charter is not an ‘opt-out’ (as the Government originally claimed) and will not work…

“It is clear that the Government accepts that the Charter will be legally binding, and it has stated that the Protocol is not an opt-out. Since the Protocol is to operate subject to the UK’s obligations under the Treaties, it still seems doubtful to us that the Protocol has the effect that the courts of this country will not be bound by interpretations of measures of Union law given by the ECJ and based on the Charter. If the ECJ gives a ruling in a case arising outside the UK on a measure which also applies in the UK, the duty to interpret the measure in accordance with that ruling arises, not under the Charter, but under the UK’s other Treaty obligations. Nothing in the Protocol appears to excuse the UK from this obligation.

…In our view, the only way of ensuring that the Charter does not affect UK law in any way is to make clear, as we have already suggested, that the Protocol takes effect “notwithstanding the Treaties or Union law generally.” We note that this kind of provision has been made in the Protocol to the EC Treaty on the acquisition of property in Denmark (No. 16) and in the Protocol to the EU Treaty on Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution (No. 17), but it has not been made in respect of the Charter.”

There is detailed explanation of the UK’s opt-in arrangement on Justice and Home Affairs, particularly the changes that weakened the UK’s protocol subsequent to the agreement on IGC mandate in June. The Committee question whether the UK can be genuinely free to choose whether or not it opts-in to a measure amending an existing JHA measure:

“the risk of losing the benefit of an existing measure, because of a choice not to participate in its amendment, by virtue of a decision in which the UK cannot take part, must put at least some pressure on the UK to opt in. We also note the new possibility for the Council to decide by QMV that the UK should bear the direct financial consequences necessarily and unavoidably incurred if the UK ceases to participate in a measure. This must import some measure of financial risk, not present before, into a decision not to opt in and we question whether it is in the UK’s interests to be exposed to such risk.

It concludes by highlighting the danger of “exposing the UK to new and unpredictable consequences and risk if it decides not to opt in to any transposed or amended measure. The ‘opt-in’ decision under these proposals will become one which may lead to serious consequences for the UK through the transfer of jurisdiction on important measures dealing with civil and criminal justice.”

Just a thought

The lost data disks have done nothing to make the idea of ID cards more popular...

Presumably we can look forwards to a similar spraying around of our personal details under the EU's Prum Treaty, which mandates the sharing of all kinds of data (and which is going ahead with almost no discussion at all).

The truth?

...You can't handle the truth.

From PA:

Europe's agriculture Commissioner lost her cool this afternoon over claims that EU farm subsidies are being handed out to golf clubs and riding stables in the UK.

The findings in a report last week by Europe's financial watchdog resurfaced as Mariann Fischer-Boel was promising a new streamlined, cash-efficient, environmentally-friendly Common Agricultural Policy.

And the 64-year old Dane deployed her excellent ability in the English language to full effect when she told a press conference she was "p***** off" with such "stupid" claims.

Ms Fischer-Boel wanted to focus on her plans to put a ceiling on agricultural grants to Europe's wealthiest farmers, including the Queen and members of the English land-owning aristocracy and make sure EU payments were directed towards poorer hill farmers who most need help.

But she couldn't shake off the damning evidence from the European Court of Auditors.

Asked during the press conference in Brussels about EU payments feeding golf course coffers, Ms Fischer-Boel replied: "Can I start by killing immediately this stupid message that we pay direct payments to golf courses?

"I was disappointed, then surprised, then I became angry to see the Court of Auditors say we paid money for golf courses.

"This is completely out of the question - it has never been our intention."

But, aware that more than 30 UK courses have been receiving EU budget payments under the Common Agricultural Policy, she explained: "There is a situation where you have a company that owns a golf course and next to that they may have some arable or agricultural land, and of course if they are running this land as a farmer then they are entitled to get their direct payment. But we don't support golf courses, let's be very clear, so I hope this discussion is dead."

*Sigh* The contorted phrase "running this land as a farmer" might to the uninitiated suggest that they would have to be farming the land to get the subsidy. But actually, that's not quite true. It just needs to be the right sort of land. As time goes by more and more non farmers will end up owning subsidies (Open Europe already owns one).

As for the idea that the Commission's proposal is a radical new reform... Jack Thurston has the details. Suffice to say it isn't actually new, or a meaningful reform.

What it is is an attempt to distract attention from reform. And to some extent it has worked. Yesterday's Today Programme dutifully reported that the UK and Germany were resisting the Commission's proposals for "reform".

The reality is that trying to set an artificial cap on payments to "individuals" would be instantly circumvented, as individuals, trusts and companies parceled up and dispersed their land into sub-units to get under the threshold.

What would really help tenant farmers would be a reduction in the total spent subsidising the ownership of land - and therefore increasing their rent. But that's not on the agenda.

Miliband at Bruges

His speech is up on PA - and it appears to be lots and lots of yada yada held loosely together with the rather threadbare idea that the EU - even if it is demographically doomed - can at least be a "model power" blazing a trail for regional integration elsewhere in the world.

"The EU is not and never will be a superpower. An EU of 27 nation states or more is never going to have the fleetness of foot or the fiscal base to dominate. In fact economically and demographically Europe will be less important in the world of 2050 that it was in the world of 1950.

Our opportunity is different. The EU has the opportunity to be a model power. It can chart a course for regional cooperation between medium-sized and small countries."

Never mind that African countries don't really want to have the EU "model" imposed on them through EPAs, or that the rising powers of the future are not regions but really big single states. Nonetheless, the EU needs a new "narrative" and today being a "model power" seems to be it.

Is it just us or is there also an echo here of British politicians after 1945 talking about "the moral leadership of the world" to replace its fading capacity for real leadership? Do all declining blocs grasp at these kind of straws?

One interesting irony that Miliband's main example of how the EU is supposed to become a "model power" is the environment:

"In the decisions made at the Spring Council last year, the EU showed its ambitions to be model power on climate change."

Um... you mean the targets that the UK is already trying to back out of...? Hardly "model" behaviour.

In fairness there is one new idea in the speech - again connected with the environment. But its a stinker.

We have already agreed to extend the EU ETS to include aviation, but we must also consider the case for surface transport. And we should consider moving from individual countries setting their own allocation to harmonised allocations on the road to cap-setting done centrally. As the European Central Bank regulates money supply for the eurozone, it is worth thinking whether the idea of a European Carbon Bank could in future set limits on the production of carbon across Europe.

Hmmm. A single cap is bad not just because it's a tax, and taxes should be democratically controlled.

Realistically, it is also not going to happen. Many of the other member states are only taking part in ETS on the understanding that they will be given more permits than they need and can make money out of the scheme. So any "EU carbon bank" is likely to go the way of Northern Rock - with plenty of people keen to take out, but very few willing to put anything in...

You cannot be serious

George Parker argues on his blog that "Mr Brown has a golden opportunity to lead in Europe along with likeminded allies like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel".

Oh no.

It's standard media fare in the UK to regard all new EU leaders as our new "natural allies", and to argue that their election proves once and for all that "Europe is reforming and coming our way" - as the Foreign Office always says.

Aznar, Berlusconi, Schroder, and even Chirac were all at one point supposed to be our new best friends.

But with Sarkozy it is particularly ludicrous. A quick run through of his priorities (as shown in his speech and comments yesterday).

- No to Turkey in the EU
- Increased protectionism "Community preference"
- Further development of EU defence structures outside NATO
- French European industrial champions
- "Political" management of monetary policy and the euro exchange rate
- No to energy monopoly reform
- No to ending the Parliament's Strasbourg seat
- A further round of integration hot on the heels of the Constitution

Again and again his position is the exact-180-degree-opposite of London. Is there anything they agree on? Ah yes, there is one thing. As Sarko said yesterday, the political class must stick together to avoid referendums:

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting no. It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments. A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."

(Not) changing their spots

There's some fabulously cynical stuff in this discusssion paper on the Constitution from the EU's "Bureau of European Policy Advisors".

It's nice to see that they are at least aware of the hypocritical nature of what they are doing.

"a solution to the crisis over the Constitutional Treaty has to resolve the two impossibilities of (1) changing the text in order for it to stay (mostly) the same and (2) stressing the necessity and relevance of the Constitutional Treaty while emphasizing that the EU was moving on with important political projects in its absence."

"The Commission especially faces the impossible task of showing the functioning of "Europe of results" and arguing that the Constitutional Treaty is desperately needed. Whatever the solution in the end, every possibility would have a political cost to each Member State government."

We particularly like the Lampedusa-like admission about 'changing the text in order that it can stay the same'. Very EU.

Referendums on anything you want - just not the EU Constitution

So many politicians seem to be banging on about referendums and people power at the moment.

But curiously none of them seem keen on a referendum on the issue that is actually on the table - the revived EU Constitution. Perhaps it is some kind of psychological displacement activity?

HUHNE

Fleshing out his policy platform, Mr Huhne promised to give the public a referendum on new laws where there was a certain level of demand.

He suggested that 2.5% support for a vote could be enough to trigger a vote if it was registered within 100 days of the legislation's passage through Parliament.

"We need a people's veto to block unwanted law," he said, adding that it would introduce a new check on the "overweening" powers of the executive.

MILIBAND

"One lesson of the last 15 plus years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is that democracy and its practice are learnt slowly - but also that they need to be learnt from the bottom up. (Some of the problems of British government are that we have forgotten this lesson and allowed local democracy to weaken - hence the repeated government efforts, including under the new government, to give more power to local government). It is not glib to talk about the local roots of self government. At the beginning of the American revolution Thomas Paine understood this. He said "Let the crown be demolished and scattered among the people whose right it is".

WILLS

A referendum would be "inevitable" if plans to give the UK a written constitution go ahead, a minister says.

Justice minister Michael Wills said any "fundamental alteration in the powers of Parliament" was likely to make a vote by the public necessary.


Politicians are perfectly happy to bang on about giving more power to the people - as long as it doesn't actually ever happen. You want a referendum on the European Constitution? Forget it. There is definitely something in the idea that public dislike of politicians is driven in large part by perception of their pointlessness.

But it is also driven by the perception that so much of what politicians say is guff. And vague guff too. As Harry Frankfurt argued in his famous essay:

"Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point in a set or system of beliefs, in order to avoid the consequences of having that point occupied by the truth. This requires a degree of craftsmanship, in which the teller of the lie submits to objective constraints imposed by what he takes to be the truth. The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of that truth. "

"On the other hand, a person who undertakes to bullshit his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular. He does not limit himself to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point, and thus he is not constrained by the truths surrounding that point or intersecting it. He is prepared to fake the context as well, so far as need requires. "

"This freedom from the constraints to which the liar must submit does not necessarily mean, of course, that his task is easier than the task of the liar. But the mode of creativity upon which it relies is less analytical and less deliberative than that which is mobilized in lying. It is more expansive and independent, with mare spacious opportunities for improvisation, colour, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the “bullshit artist.”"

Myth and reality

Standard europhile narrative:

"Yes... but we never really get outvoted... after all, when does the EU really force us to do anything we don't want to do? Its just a way for us to pool our sovereignty to have more influence."

Reality:

TEACHER KILLER CANNOT BE DEPORTED, JUDGE CONFIRMS

COURTS Chindamo
31 Oct 2007 - 16:26
By John Aston, PA

Page 1

A senior High Court judge has refused a Government request to reconsider a tribunal's decision that Learco Chindamo, the murderer of headteacher Philip Lawrence, cannot be deported to Italy.

Immigration minister Liam Byrne instructed officials to apply to a senior judge for a last-ditch review.

But Mr Justice Collins, in a ruling announced today, has upheld the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's decision that Chindamo, jailed in 1996, cannot be deported on release.

He becomes eligible for parole next year.

Refusing to order a reconsideration, the judge said: "There is no error of law in the careful determination of the tribunal."

The ruling will come as a blow to Mr Byrne, who says the Government wants foreign nationals who commit serious crimes to be "automatically deported".

It also follows news that serial sex offender Mohammed Kendeh is to be allowed to stay in Britain because deporting him to his native Sierre Leone would breach his human right to a family life.

In the Chindamo case, the judge emphasised that his decision was mainly based on EU regulations and the fact that it would be "disproportionate"
to remove the 27-year-old, as an EU citizen, under those regulations.

Although born in Italy, Chindamo has lived in the UK since the age of six.

He was 15 when, in 1995, he stabbed Mr Lawrence, who was trying to protect another pupil at the gates of his west London school.

It was reported that ministers told Frances Lawrence, the teacher's widow, that they intended to seek Chindamo's deportation to Italy when he becomes eligible for parole in 2008.

Today the judge said: "If assurances were given to the victim's widow or to the public that the appellant would be removed, they should not have been and cannot now justify removal."

SNP call for a referendum

According to the Record the SNP have come out for a referendum on the EU Constitution.

SNP MP Angus Robertson said: "We'll trust the people while Gordon Brown will not trust the people. We are honour-bound to support a referendum."

Its nice to have them supporting a referendum. But will it make any difference? The party seems to be shying away from supporting a consultative referendum in Scotland. But that's the only way they can make things really interesting for Gordon Brown...

Why UK justice safeguard cannot be watertight

In the House of Commons yesterday Frank Dobson MP raised the "injustice" done to one of his constituents, Joseph Mendy, under the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant. Mendy was arrested in the Canary Islands in November 2003 on suspicion of counterfeiting €50 euro notes despite the fact he was never found in possession of a counterfeited note. He and his friends were released and heard nothing more from the Spanish authorities until March this year when he was served with a European Arrest Warrant. Mendy appealed the extradition but as Dobson stressed, "this involves the UK courts doing nothing more than going through the motions, because there are virtually no grounds on which to challenge a European extradition warrant."

Dobson continued:

"At the subsequent court appearance in Madrid, Joe Mendy was denied bail on the bizarre grounds that he was a flight risk. By this time, the Spanish judicial holidays were commencing, so my innocent constituent of exemplary good character was held in the Spanish jail over the summer." "After spending almost two months on remand in the Spanish jail, Joe appeared before a Spanish judge on 15 September. His Spanish lawyer advised him that if he continued to plead not guilty, he was likely to be held in jail for at least a further year before his case came to trial. If, however, he pleaded guilty, he would, because of his exemplary record in Britain, get a suspended sentence and a small fine. Understandably in such dreadful circumstances, he pleaded guilty and got a two-year suspended sentence and a €600 fine."

"The treatment of Joe Mendy is a disgrace; it is exactly the sort of incident that brings European institutions into disrepute. What happened to the warrant between June 2004 and March 2007? Was it mislaid? Sadly, the law that we passed does not require the authorities to use their common sense or to have a sense of proportion. Having being passed by the House on the argument that it would speed up extradition, our law does not demand that the authorities proceed expeditiously. Instead, it demonstrably permits them to take nearly four years to crank up this draconian machinery."

Home Office Minister Meg Hillier responded saying:

"We have to have faith in our European partners, and there are safeguards in place to ensure that each European country has a proper legal and judicial process to take such decisions. We have heard that Mr Mendy’s case has been concluded and that he is back in the UK having received a suspended sentence. I am pleased to hear that he can now start at Liverpool University next year and begin to get his life back on track."

It goes without saying that this is a totally unacceptable outcome for a system that was originally intended to expedite the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism.

Sadly, it is likely that this case is far from unique. As leaked Commission documents revealed this summer, EU Arrest Warrants (EAWs) have been frequently issued for trivial crimes - including the theft of two car tyres, and a single case of piglet rustling. The EU report admits that the arrest warrants are being used "disproportionately" to the seriousness of offences.

It is clear from this case that serious inconsistencies in standards can arise between different legal regimes across different member states. But this sits uneasily with the basis of the EAW: judicial mutual recognition. For this reason, it is almost certain that we’ll hear increasing calls for legislating for EU-wide criminal procedural standards – in other words, the problems arising from mutual recognition creates the impetus for full harmonisation.

The revised EU Constitution provides the avenue for such harmonisation, with the dropping of national vetos in justice and home affairs. It is unlikely the UK will be immune from these developments, despite the Government’s claim to have an ‘opt-in’ arrangement in this area.

In short, the nature of the UK ‘safeguard’ on JHA puts a gun to the head of the Government if it wishes to opt out of future developments based on existing legislation which already applies to the UK, like the EAW. If the UK doesn’t want to accept the amending legislation to something like the EAW, then it will be thrown out of participation in that legislation in its entirety.

Given current the current security situation, it is highly unlikely that the UK Government would be prepared to give up any form of agreement with other member states on extradition, such as the EAW. It would therefore be highly problematic for Britain not to opt-in on measures amending the EAW.

If, as seems probable, the EU does choose to move towards criminal procedural harmonisation in order to address the issues raised by cases such as that of Joe Mendy, it would be unlikely the UK could in practice exclude itself from such moves under the revised Constitution.

Should the Constitution be ratified, existing UK participation in European extradition agreements will be a powerful lever to force the UK to opt in on future EU justice and home affairs legislation.

Hands in the till

The Economist blog picks up on yet another example of the appalling mindset of the European political class.

Meanwhile Lindsay Appleby at the FCO reports that there was a "heated debate" about what legal base should be used for the updated regulation on European Political Parties.

Really. Rather than arcane rows about legal bases it might be interesting to hear exactly why the Government thinks that it should be allowed to help itself to taxpayers money to fund its campaigning activity.

It's bad enough having to listen to them spouting endless balls... but having to then pay for the privilege is really galling.

Given the row that there has been about taxpayer funding of political parties in the UK it's a shame there hasn't been more controversy about the same thing happening at EU level.

As usual, you can get away with all kinds of things if you do them in Brussels...

How ridiculous

David Miliband banging on about his admiration for "bottom up democracy".

Isn't he forgetting something?

Literally smoke filled rooms

...according to David Miliband.

No longer *Independent* ?

A bit of off-site blogging from Neil over at the Coffee House.

Liberal Democrats - the clue should be in the name

Poor old Ming.

On the upside - the Lib Dems can have a bit of a think about what they stand for - and what's going to differentiate them as they get squeezed from both sides.

They have an opportunity to escape from the corner Sir Menzies had painted the party into on the referendum issue. But will either of the leadership challengers take it...?

On 11% in the polls - the Lib Dems could do with some popular policies soon.

EPAs - time running out

Our paper on Economic Partnership Agreements is out.

There's a piece about it on Comment is Free.

Let us know what you think...

proper names part two

"A Foreign Minister who cannot be called a Foreign Minister"

- Federalist MEP Elmar Brok finds a nice way to describe the proposed High-Representative-for-Foreign-Affairs-and-Security-Policy.

Garton Ash for a referendum?

Tim Garton Ash comes out (just about) for a referendum in his piece in the Guardian this morning.

When I talk privately to pro-European friends, this is almost invariably the clinching argument: "Because we would lose it!" ...

We now face a choice of evils: either this good thing is pushed through by the established procedures of a parliamentary democracy, but without clear popular consent; or popular consent is sought in a referendum, which will probably be lost...

Which is the lesser evil? Many of my pro-European friends will jump on me for saying this, but I must admit that I rather hanker after open combat. Sound the trumpets, stiffen the sinews, and let us march out from this boggy ground. At least it would make a change from Groundhog Day.

Welcome to the campaign, Tim.

Milliband at the FAC

David Miliband is at the Foreign Affairs Committee today. Thoughts as they occur to us below:
.....

The Government has some very peculiar arguments: M says "it makes it clear for the first time that member states are in charge of foreign policy" - so what was the case before?

The reality is that the warm (and non binding) words in the "declaration" Miliband is talking about are only there as a sop to the UK because so much else is being given up.

.....

An interesting question: would Miliband have been happy to campaign for the Constitutional Treaty, as promised in the 2005 Labour manifesto?

However, in answer we are being treated to the usual blah blah – its not a single treaty, UK has lots of opt outs etc. But yes, he "stands by it."

.....

David Heathcoat Amory has picked M up on his pathetic attempt to rubbish the European Scrutiny Committee report by saying its out of date. Obviously he isn't answering the question. He talks about the "transitional" agreements in Justice and Home Affairs.

DHA is now pressing for detail on the changes in the new draft. Miliband says "there is detail now" - but he sounds jolly defensive and rightly so. Because it isn't good detail from the UK government's point of view.

Look at the new article 4a of the protocol on the UK and Ireland (on page 61 of this document).

It essentially says that in future if there are amendments to JHA legislation which the UK is opted into, then the other member states can hold a gun to the UK's head by saying that Britain will be thrown out of that piece of legislation:

If at the expiry of that period of two months from the Council's determination the United Kingdom or Ireland has not made a notification under Article 3 or Article 4, the existing measure shall no longer be binding upon or applicable to it

And indeed in future:

"The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may determine that the United Kingdom or Ireland shall bear the direct financial consequences, if any, necessarily and unavoidably incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in the existing measure."

In short the opt-in arrangement has been substantially weakened - after quite a strong fightback from the more federally-minded member states. Hardly a triumph. In fact it *strengthens* the ESC's case that the "red lines" will "leak like a sieve".

.....

Miliband says, "Every single one of the rights in the Charter exists already."

This is palpable nonsense. If they were not new rights why did the Government initially spin that it had an "opt out" (before doing a u-turn)? If they are not new rights why has the Government been worried about it for the last seven years. In fact many of the rights are said in the text of explanations to be derived from documents to which the UK is not a signatory. Others are just plain new. (See our guide for more.)

.....

Wonderful forensic stuff from Gisela Stuart. Just got him to admit that people in Britain are perfectly capable of making rational decisions in referendums. He says its only the French who vote on other off topic issues.

Also (for euro-nerds) she makes the good point that even the Constitution didn't bring all the treaties together... actually the Euratom treaty stayed out. A fair quibble on a fundamentally terrible argument from the Government. Why was stapling the treaties together "legally unprecedented" anyway?

Stuart has also come back to the first point - why do we have to say "member states are in charge of foreign policy" – aren’t they anyway?

M says "its good that its clear and established... we know where we stand". Another awful argument deflates....

.....

Stuff on the timetable for ratification.

M says there isn't one yet. He will proceed "promptly" with ratification after December.

.....

It's been pointed out that the declaration on foreign policy is not legally binding.

M says declarations are "worthwhile even if they don't have legal force". Grrrr-eat.

.....

Verdict: a pretty defensive performance. Miliband better get used to it - with the election off there is going to be years of this stuff....

The Constitution lives on

Just digging through the new version of the treaty which came out today.

There are lots of little changes which will need looking at more to figure out what they mean.

But one change they should have made is missing - even in the new draft it still mistakenly talks about itself as "the Constitution" at one point (Article 188c.6).

Ooops.

A good day to bury bad news?

Curious timing...

The long awaited report of the cross-party European Scrutiny Committee on the new Constitutional Treaty is to be released next Monday for Tuesday. Perhaps the government have been spooked by signs that the members of the Committee are rather sceptical about their much vaunted "red lines". If it is going to be a bad report from the Government's point of view then at least there will be rather a lot of other news that day - with the CSR and the final build up to the election announcement.

It appears there have been lots of other shenanigans going on too. The meeting to finalise the report was supposed to happen on 19 September. But funnily enough Jim Murphy insisted at the last minute that the meeting had to be moved... funnily enough to the week of the tory conference (he was on a school trip apparently).

Nonetheless, the report does finally seem to be about to see the light of day - but only when not a single journalist will be watching.

Weird press releases of the world unite

What kind of euro obsessive do you have to be to write a press release like this?

The Young European Federalists (JEF Europe) welcome the Commission’s Communication "Communicating Europe in Partnership" which is going to be presented on Wednesday. However, its key project, an inter-institutional agreement (IIA) on communication will not be enough. Jan Seifert, President of JEF Europe, stated: "If we really want to be serious about EU communication policy we need a constitutional base embedded in the Reform Treaty".

And how self important exactly?

More of the weirdness from planet Brussels is available here

Back again

The conference season is finally over. We've been at: TUC, Green, Lib Dems, Labour and the Conservatives. Its been very productive for us, but the blog has kinda died of neglect in the meantime... so as a re-starter for ten, have a look at the excellent Chris Hope's piece.

As part of a long runing row with the European Scruitiny Committee about the Government's refusal to discuss the negotiations in Brussels, Jim Murphy said the other day that the Government had signed up to the outline agreement on the revived Constitution after having seen it for the first time just forty-eight hours beforehand. Its a pretty seat-of-the-pants way to negotiate something so important.

come on Ming

Ming Campbell has called for the members of the public to write a British Constitution… and then put it to a national referendum.

That doesn't sit very easily with not holding a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty.

He says: "As a first step, a written constitution is essential to ensure that the sovereignty of the citizen is established."

This, he argued, should be partly written by members of the public chosen by a lottery, before being approved by a nationwide referendum. "