Transparency - getting closer

The transparency initiative is inching along.

Another MEP has answered. (Martin Callanan - friendly eurosceptic conservative and northerner)

That takes us closer to having some sort of response from a majority of MEPs.

23 have responded in full. 13 have given some kind of partial response. But 43 UK MEPs still don't want to say anything about how they are spending your money.

After a rush from UKIP MEPs the scores by party are now:

GREENS
FULL RESPONSES 2
TOTAL 2

UKIP
FULL RESPONSES 5
PARTIAL 4
NONE 1
TOTAL 10

CONSERVATIVES
FULL RESPONSES 11
PARTIAL 5
NONE 13
TOTAL 29

LIB DEMS
FULL RESPONSES 3
PARTIAL 0
NO 7
TOTAL 11

LABOUR
FULL RESPONSES 2
PARTIAL 3
NO 15
TOTAL 19

Non attached & nationalist parties
FULL RESPONSES 0
PARTIAL 1
NO 7
TOTAL 8

Have a look at the full list. If your MEP hasn't answered, why not email them to ask why?

why there is no veto on trade

In an effort to buy up the votes of the Irish farmers, Brian Cowen promised to "veto" any world trade deal that threatened to cut their spending. Various Irish journos got in touch to ask whether that would even be possible under the Lisbon Treaty.

Its a complicated issue, but here is our view:

------

As a leader in Le Monde noted on Friday, Cowen’s pledge to veto the Doha round to protect Irish farmers is nothing but an “empty promise”, because “an EU member state does not have a veto right in agriculture.”

What’s absolutely clear (and not disputed) is that core trade policy is made by majority vote. Everything to do with trade in goods and almost all services are just straightforwardly a majority vote (apart from audiovisual, education and health services, and Foreign Direct Investment). The treaty brings in QMV on FDI too, and gets rid of the few remaining exemptions in services.

The European Commission notes that the treaty “will extend the scope of the trade policy to include all foreign direct investments and makes it clearly an exclusive
competence of the Union.”

Under current arrangements, in some fields both the member states and the EU can negotiate trade deals, allowing member states to have their own trade agreements alongside those of the EU as a whole. For example, various EU member states have signed a number of Bilateral Investment Treaties with other countries around the world. Exclusive competence in this area would make such bilateral agreements impossible.

To make the point clear, the Lisbon Treaty deletes the clause in the existing treaty (Article 133.5 TEC) which states that EU trade policies “shall not affect the rights of the Member States to maintain and conclude agreements with third countries”.

Trade in health and education services, currently decided by unanimity, would also be affected – under the new treaty the EU would have the same powers over these
issues that it has over trade in goods.

The only remaining opportunities to appeal to unanimity under the Lisbon Treaty are these:

“in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these risk prejudicing the Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity”

and

“in the field of social, educational and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services”

In my view this is not even an emergency brake. Unless you can prove (to the ECJ) that a trade deal which includes a health or education services element would “seriously disturb the national organisation” of those services then the default position is a decision by QMV. In other words, if you wanted to stop a QMV decision then you would have to take a massive and potentially humiliating gamble on an appeal to the ECJ – you can’t even pull an “emergency brake” in the council here.

The Commission (in their retraction of what Europe Direct previously said) said that “The new treaty would remove some of these exceptions, making more coherent and homogeneous the Union's common commercial policy (Article 207 (1) TFEU). However, the requirement for unanimity for agreements in the areas of certain key services (e.g. cultural and audiovisual, social, education and health), intellectual property rights enforcement and investment will remain in certain circumstances (Article 207 (4), second and third paragraphs, TFEU).” [my bold]

This is the nub of our disagreement. I don’t think saying that “In certain circumstances” you could appeal to the ECJ is really the same as there being a “veto” at all.

Moreover, it is not clear that any WTO deal that might emerge from Doha would even include a deal on such services, which the Commission rather blandly assumes. These would be the most controversial elements of any trade deal – and Doha is moving towards a more cut down deal for goods trade rather than an all encompassing affair like the Uruguay round which launched TRIPS and did a lot on services.

So the few remaining tethers that stop trade deals from being an exclusive community competence are being cut away with Lisbon. And it isn’t even clear that the next likely contents of the next WTO round will require unanimity - even under the current rules.

Phew!

Of course, in reality the obstacle to a WTO deal is nothing to do with there being one member state "vetoing" an ambitious offer from the EU - but a whole raft of protectionist member states with more than enough clout to block progress.

Hmmph.

On the job

Bruno Waterfield seems to have found the smoking gun in the Telegraph this morning.

"Working from home" seems to have required a new meaning in Brussels.

---

Mr Dover said: "Everyone agrees that I am not breaking any of the parliament's rules. I want to get on with my job of representing voters here in my constituency, not talking to the media about this."

He uses a family-owned company, M P Holdings Ltd, as the "service provider" for secretarial and parliamentary assistant work paid for by the parliament, currently worth more than £160,000 a year.

He declared "no financial interest" in the family-owned firm that employs his wife, Kathleen, as secretary and daughter, Amanda, as part-time parliamentary assistant. Both wife and daughter are also company directors.

Since 1999, £271,692 has been paid to the directors. In 2007, company accounts, registered in January 2008, show that the "director's emoluments" were £60,000.

Mr Dover said: "They get market rates, but they put in two or three times the number of hours – they just never stop, and I pay tribute to their hard work. Therefore I am totally innocent of any charges."

But the parliament's register of assistants shows that they are not accredited to enter or use official buildings in Brussels or Strasbourg.

As well as earning between £20,000 and £30,000 as a part-time parliamentary assistant, The Daily Telegraph has learnt that Amanda Dover, a "fully qualified secretary", works a four-day week as a travel agent in Radlett, Herts, close to her home.

Mr Dover said: "They work as and when required. A lot can be done on the internet, over the wires so to speak."

Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat MEP who has called for reform of the expenses regime, has highlighted Mr Dover's arrangements in his campaign.

"I doubt that Den Dover has broken any parliamentary rules, but this simply highlights that there is something very wrong with the rules."

How much do MEPs cost?

With the controversy over MEPs' expenses returning to the news, we've received a few queries along the lines of 'how much can MEPs claim in total?'

We've put together the following list of the European Parliament allowances, together with salary/ pension figures. Both salary and first pension are linked to the UK rates, the rest are EU-wide:

Salary = £61,820
First pension (after ten years service) £13,750
EU Parliament contributions to second pension: £18,500
Staff = £148 761
Office costs “general expenses” = £37,881
Daily subsistence (180 days) £50,220
Travel excess = £10,000
Travel allowance = £2,316

TOTAL = £343,248 a year

They also get life and accident insurance, and private healthcare for them and their family.

There are 785 MEPs - salaries and pensions vary quite a bit depending on nationality (eg. Italian MEPs get paid far more than their British counterparts, whilst Hungarian deputies get much less), but to give a fairly rough ball-park estimate based on the UK entitlements, the total bill for the European Parliament would be £270m or €340m.

Transparency initiative update

More MEPs have responded to the Transparency Initiative.

The full details are on a speadsheet on this link.

Transparency scores on the doors broken down by party are now:

Greens 100%
UKIP 70%
Conservatives 45%
Lib Dems 30%
Labour 18%
Non-attached/
nationalist 6%

And looking at the totals that means 45% of the UK MEPs have now responded in some way shape or form... but 55% don't feel like they need to answer questions about how they spend our money. Still, a couple more MEPs have told us their answers are in the pipeline.

Full response 22
Parlial response 13
No response 43
(TOTAL 78)

Ireland are having a referendum...

...so why can't we?



People have been turning up at Irish embassies across Europe to support the no campaign and ask why they are being denied a referendum...



... and to have a few guinesses.


Direct democratic engagment is good for you.

EIT your heart out

The FT blogs that various cities around Europe are vying to host the European Institute of Technology (EIT).

The EIT is a good example of how the EU is not just the sum of its intergovernmental parts.

The motivation is one thing. As the various Governments pointed out when Barroso first proposed it, the EU already has some perfectly good universities - why not concentrate on improving them?

But the EIT is not really about technology at all. The point is really all about trying to mirror the United States, and create a common identity - "a European equivalent of MIT", as it is always described.

Having failed to stop it going ahead in the first place, the UK bleated on and on about how the EIT had to be a virtual network, rather than a physical institute in a particular place. But this was missing the point - the whole point is to have a physical institute with a little EU flag on top.

Now all that remains is a battle over the location. In recent years, as the number of EU agencies has proliferated, member states have been furiously trying to grab as much EU spending as possible - from the "Food Safety Agency" to the "European Institute for Gender Equality", pretty much everyone has a slice of the cake. For instance:

Austria

* European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Belgium

* Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA)
* Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
* European Defence Agency (EDA)
* European GNSS Supervisory Authority (GSA)
* Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI)
* Research Executive Agency (REA)
* European Research Council Executive Agency (ERC)
* Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA)

Denmark

* European Environment Agency (EEA)

Finland

* European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

France

* Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
* European Railway Agency (ERA)
* European Union Institute for Security Studies (ISS)

Germany

* European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Greece

* European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
* European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
* European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

Ireland

* European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)

Italy

* European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
* European Training Foundation (ETF)

Lithuania

* European Institute for Gender Equality (under preparation)

Luxembourg

* Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)
* Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme (PHEA)

The Netherlands

* The European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit (EUROJUST)
* European Police Office (EUROPOL)

Poland

* European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

Portugal

* European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
* European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)

Spain

* Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market – Trade Marks and Designs (OHIM)
* European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OSHA)
* European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Fusion for Energy)
* European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC)

Sweden

* European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

United Kingdom

* European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
* European Police College (CEPOL)

Quite what the point of all these institutes is another question... still, it all helps "build" Europe. Doubtless in a few years time the Foreign Office will be saying that they were in favour of it all along, and that it is further proof that "Europe is reforming and coming our way" (as it always supposedly is).

*sigh*

Ohmygod

We think Bob Piper has called it right

europropaganda

Yet more faintly off-putting EU propaganda for kids

Posters saying that their school milk has been provided by the EU.

Hmmm.

The justification for the posters?

“Experience has further shown that European Union citizens are not sufficiently aware of the role played by the Community in the school milk scheme. As a result, it should be laid down that the European Union flag must appear on the packaging. In cases where the method of distribution or substantial technical difficulties do not allow the use of individual packaging and appropriate labelling, the fact that the school milk scheme is subsidised by the European Community should be indicated in the form of a clearly visible and readable poster or sign put next to the place of distribution.”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/

Massive hypocrisy (part 188)

According to the Press Association MEPs have today voted to increase the amount of subsidies you and me pay each year to "hard-pressed" tobacco farmers. As the global credit crunch starts to bite and rising food and petrol prices hit your daily budget I'm sure you'll be as pleased as we are that more than €300 million a year of our taxes will continue to be spanked on producing a crop which killed over 500,000 people in Europe last year.

In the perverse world that is the EU, farmers are paid £5,250 a hectare to grow tobacco while wheat farmers receive £240 a hectare.

In the UK alone the NHS spends £1.5bn a year treating people with smoking related diseases and the government spends around £30m on anti-smoking education campaigns and £40m is spent helping people stop smoking. No contradictions there then...

Last year the Government claimed the EU had seen the light and that tobacco subsidies would end in 2010, but the clowns in the European Parliament have just voted to extend tobacco farmer's gravy train until at least 2012.

The issue will now go to an agriculutural ministers meeting where no doubt the UK Government will defend our interests admirably (remember that root-and-branch review of the CAP that Blair promised us in return for our rebate anybody?)

Other news just in which helps to confirm that Brussels really is on another planet: today is the launch of European Maritime Day which "will highlight the importance of the oceans and seas to Europe". This from the organisation which has admitted that its very own Common Fisheries Policy is "morally wrong" and is single handedly responsible for destroying some of the richest fishing stocks in the world?

Apparently this great day is going to be a celebrated with a "stakeholders conference" in Brussels. Hurrah! Cohibas all round...

no biofuels no cry

Blimey

Its the anti-biofuel reggae from the NGO biofuel watch.

Not sure about the tune, but the sentiment is fair enough.

having your cake and eating it

Eurofanatic Indie hack Jeremy Warner makes (or rather repeats) an intriguing argument in his column today.

Space constraints prevent me from repeating the many positives Britain has derived from enlargement that were aired at yesterday's "Business for New Europe" conference, but here's an interesting thought from one of the speakers, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, the corporate and legal affairs director at Tesco.

Just as the influx of Poles and other Eastern European workers helped fill shortages in the labour force during the upswing, they are now acting as a useful shock absorber for the labour market as the economy slows, with many deciding to return home to the higher growth eco-nomies from which they came. With luck, it may mean Britain can survive more difficult times without the usual, steep rise in unemployment.

Er... doesn't this kind of contradict the Governments previous argument that migration from eastern Europe doesn't cause unemployment? If people going home would "create" jobs then doesn't that rather suggest that them turning up probably "takes" jobs away from people here? You can't have it both ways.

Obviously if a lot of people turn up in a short space of time that is likely to create some frictional unemployment, but with a flexible economy that should clear pretty quickly. There is not a set number of jobs in the UK economy. Indeed, most migrants come here to do a specific job.

Post migration the labour market will clear with a slightly lower wage rate for unskilled workers who face more competition. The government have never really faced up to that. On the one hand the Government want to say that it increased migration hasn't reduced wages. On the other hand they say migration has “held down inflation”. Again - which is it to be?

One duff argument in the migration debate is that we "need" immigration so that immigrants will do the jobs that people in Britain won't do. This is nonsense. The UK has 7 million economically inactive people, and with a flexible economy wages will rise to the point where people will do the job. Are Brits too good to clean the bog, or take out the bins, or work on a farm? Are these jobs “only fit for Poles”? It’s a pretty dodgy argument that would probably sit better in the rhetoric of the hard right, than the liberal eeejuts that normally make this argument.

The bottom line is that the answer to unemployment is a flexible economy. The answer to low wages is to transform our utterly useless education system.

There is an argument that says migration is good because its a stealthy way to make the economy more flexible. But this is fundamentally bad politics because (a) making the economy more flexible by stealth through immigration is likely to be unpopular in the long term and (b) it discourages real reform - why sort out education or labour market regulation if we can just import skills, and circumvent labour market rules. NB India are desperately trying to phase out their "informal sector" - are we seriously trying to create one in the UK?

In the long run the growth of the economy is all about productivity and the accumulation of knowledge. It is pretty clear which policies promote growth (low tax, low regulation, effective public spending) and the real challenge is for politicians to pursue these goals in a gutsy way.

Migration probably has a marginal impact either way (and all EU migration is only a third of the total anyway). GDP per capita is probably initially lower because the same capital and land stock is divided among more people, and the people arriving are not that highly skilled or wealthy. On the other hand they are clearly entrepreneurial enough to move countries and probably working more hours than the average person in the UK.

Jeremy Warner thinks both it was great that people from the A8 came to the UK, and also it's just great that they are now going away (are they? - no-one knows). The truth, as the Lords recently pointed out, is that neither will really make much difference.

the pro-euro network in action

Should a government-funded university really be sponsoring what appears to be a highly partisan think tank?

Just asking the question...

The "global policy institute" appears to be uncritically pro-EU integration, anti-US, left leaning...

*Thought* given that this is standard fare in a lot of UK academia, maybe they actually can't see the bias...

Oh and London Met Uni also give the Federal Trust office space as well. Fairly clear whose side they are on then.

Irish memo in full

Here's a copy of the Irish memo in full:

Irish have picked May 29 for voting but will delay an announcement to keep the no camp guessing (please protect). DFA's EU director gives us referendum timetable and details of the bill, to be published next week. Aim is to focus the campaign on overall benefits of EU rather than the treaty itself. Concern about the potential impact of a WTO deal and of
Sarkozy.

The draft, largely incomprehensible to the lay reader, had been agreed following lengthy consultation with government lawyers and with the political parties.

The bill would enter parliament in the second week of April and it would probably take two weeks to go through and be passed around 22 April. The minister for the environment would thus be entitled to set an order naming the date for the referendum between 30 to 90 days of the order being made. Technically, the Taoiseach and Ahern saw a slight advantage in keeping the no campaign guessing. 29 May was the assumed date in working plans.

Mulhall said a date in October would have been easier from a procedural point of view. But the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency - particularly related to EU defence - were just too great. Sarkozy was completely unpredictable. The only other unhelpful event the Irish thought might impact on the May vote would be a WTO deal based on agricultural concessions that could lead the powerful farming association to withdraw its support.

I ran through the UK parliamentary ratification timetable and noted that the refernedum vote on 5 March would be a particularly sensitive moment. Mulhall remarked that the media had been relatively quiet on the ratification process so far. We would need to remain in close touch given the media crossover.

Mulhall said other partners - including the Commission - were playing a helpful, low-profile role. Vice-president Margot Wallstrom, who had been in Dublin yesterday and today, had told Dermot Ahern that the Commission was willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful.

??? ??? ???...so Irish thought treaty was taken for granted...... David Miliband not going

Most people would not have time to study the text and would go with the politicians they trusted.

Irish referendum games

The front page of the Irish Daily Mail today reports on a typically cynical leaked email from the Irish Foreign Office to the British Government, which shows that ministers are planning a deliberate campaign of misinformation to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty is passed in the upcoming referendum. Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern has apparently been personally assured by Margot Wallstrom that the EU Commission will “tone down or delay” any announcement from Brussels “that might be unhelpful.”

It also says that ministers ruled out an October referendum, which would have been better procedurally, out of fear of “unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence.” The email said “the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence – were just too great. Sarkozy was completely unpredictable.”

It also suggested that the Irish Government plans to keep people from analysing the details of the Treaty, saying, the “aim is to focus the campaign on overall benefits of the EU rather than the Treaty itself.”

Until now it had been widely assumed that the date of the referendum would be June 12. However, the memo throws this into uncertainty, admitting that the Government are playing trying to fool campaigners over the date of the referendum. It says: “Irish have picked 29 May for voting but will delay an announcement to keep the No camp guessing. The Taoiseach and (Dermot) Ahern saw a slight advantage in keeping the No camp guessing.”

Biofuels: will the Commission start listening?

We would never accuse them of lacking persistence… the EU Commission is sticking to its guns on biofuel targets, despite a wave of negative press coverage brought on by soaring food prices, and – perhaps most significantly – outbreaks of hunger-related violence in the developing world. This has so far occurred in several West African countries, Egypt and Haiti (leading to the fall of the Government there). We are also told that the Bangladeshi army has had to take control of food distribution.

Meanwhile the list of international institutions calling for the immediate suspension of biofuel targets grows ever bigger: the UN, IMF, World Bank, OECD, European Environment Agency and the EU Joint Research Centre are those we can think of (the latter two are responsible for providing scientific advice to the EU Commission).

Despite all this, the Commission still has its head in the sand on biofuels. Andrew Bounds at the FT reports that Barroso will continue to push ahead with the 10% target. Meanwhile, Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, in an extraordinary blog post, attempts to make the Commission’s case:

“In Europe, we use less than 2 percent of our cereals production for biofuels, so they do not contribute significantly to higher food prices in the European context.”

This is misleading in a number of ways. A relatively small amount of cereal production may be currently diverted towards biofuels, but Europe has always been a far bigger producer of biodiesel, which is derived from oilseed plants such as rapeseed – not cereals. So the total crop production devoted to biofuel production in Europe is already far higher than 2%.

More importantly, consumption of biofuels in Europe may be very low at the moment, but the target for 2020 will change this dramatically in the future – use of these fuels would have to increase around fivefold. Academic estimates suggest 38% of current agricultural land in Europe would need to be turned over to biofuel production in order to meet that demand. The IMF note that biofuels were responsible for just under half of the increase in the consumption of major food crops in 2006–07. Of course, a great deal of this is due to the separate US targets. But the EU targets are just as ambitious as those in the US, and America has had a highly interventionist biofuel policy for the past couple of years, whilst Europe’s hasn’t really kicked in yet – meaning that much of the future escalation of demand will most likely come from this side of the Atlantic.

Piebalgs continues:

“Even if we reach our 10% biofuels target by 2020, the price impact will be small. Our modeling suggests that it will cause a 8 to 10% increase in rape seed prices and 3 to 6% increase in cereal prices.”

Exactly the same thing was being said by the farm lobby in the US prior to the introduction of biofuel subsidies over there. Moreover, the Commission’s modelling is based on the assumption that ‘second generation’ biofuels (which would be derived from wood etc, rather than food crops) will be developed in the near future, and can satisfy around 30% of demand. But this is a non-existent technology, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether these fuels can actually be produced cost-effectively on an industrial scale. The Commission also assume imports from cheaper biofuel producers (such as Brazil or Indonesia); but at the same time the EU maintains big import tariffs on ethanol. In any case, importing palm oil from South East Asia raises some serious environmental concerns – massive deforestation is already happening in this region in anticipation of future import demand from Europe.

The Commission’s figures for commodity price changes are therefore likely to be a big underestimate. But even if they are correct, this increase in price is highly significant for the world's poorest people, who already spend 50 to 80 percent of their total household income on food. Profs. Runge and Benjamin Senauer estimate that for every percentage increase in real prices of staple foods, 16 million extra people will be drawn into food insecurity. Those in the most marginal positions will starve.

The Commissioner responds with the following:

“The charge now is that EU biofuel policy will contribute to third world poverty by driving food prices up. My impression from this debate sometimes is that we the Europeans know best what is good for people in developing world. Let them speak for themselves.”

Clearly Piebalgs hasn’t been reading the news lately – the message from developing countries seems pretty clear...


“Without a good domestic production base for so called first-generation or crop based biofuels, the more innovative and efficient products will probably never take off. We need to use first-generation biofuels as a bridge to the second generation biofuels using lignocellulosic materials as a feedstock.”

Apologists for biofuels usually argue that we need targets for biofuels now in order to spur development of new and better versions of the Victorian-era first generation agrofuels we rely on now. But according to the EU’s Joint Research Centre, €33-60bn will be spent on subsidising biofuels up until 2020. To reemphasise the point: there still no viable industrial process for producing second generation biofuels – it is pure theory. Is this really the time to be throwing taxpayers’ money at something that might prove to be a mere pipe-dream? If second generation biofuels can in fact be developed, fair enough: but surely the research funding necessary to work out how would come in at a tiny fraction of this insane cost? Why does the EU continue to defy all scientific and economic logic to promote a policy which wastes such vast amounts of our money, pushes the poor towards starvation, and will harm rather than help the environment? Piebalgs in fact answers this question in the conclusion of his blog piece:

“The EU’s ambitious but realistic 10% target will provide the market pull stimulation that farmers need to face a future market based agricultural economy and less dependence on EU subsidies.”

Translation: it’s a great way of replacing the CAP. Direct farm subsidies can be scaled down and substituted with binding targets which create artificial, state-mandated demand – another mechanism of price support for EU agribusinesses. In this light, it is abundantly clear why Brussels is so determined to press ahead with its lonely campaign for the promotion of biofuels.

Getting down with the kids

The European Parliament’s UK ‘Outreach’ office has today sent teachers an email full of ideas to help them decide how to celebrate “Europe Day for Schools” (no laughing at the back). This is part of a wider initiative called “Spring Day for Europe”, (which in actual fact runs from March to June), and which aims to “raise awareness about the European Union, its citizens and institutions and promote European citizenship education at school through traditional and ICT curriculum-based activities.” Every year millions of euros are thrown at this blatant propaganda exercise which aims to brainwash school children about the joys of EU "citizenship".

In case you’re in any doubt about the aims of the exercise, take a look at some of the ideas they give to teachers:

“Set up a European café in school using Euros/European currencies and arrange a European lunch provided by the canteen or the children” and “Play maths games using the Euro and other European currencies or distances from one capital to another.”

“Young people are invited to express in a picture what they think about the impact of Europe in their region and how Europe begins first and foremost in their community.”

There’s also some simple sheet music for Beethoven’s Ode to Joy – otherwise known as the EU anthem (wasn’t that supposed to have been binned?)

If that wasn't enough the theme for this year’s Spring Day is the catchy “European Year of Intercultural Dialogue”, on which the EU is spanking a tidy €7 million. We somehow doubt that phrase is going to catch on in the playground...

France appoints “artistic director” for EU Presidency

So now we start to see where some of the 190 million euro budget for the Presidency is going…

According to La Tribune de Geneve French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has said he wants the French EU Presidency to be “very creative” and has appointed well-known French designer Philippe Starck as “artistic director for the French EU Presidency.” Starck told AFP, “Bernard Kouchner wants to mark a very, very vivid, very interesting, very creative French Presidency.” He said it was a matter of giving “the image of very modern, very creative France, using the most sophisticated technologies, and therefore not a ‘basque beret’ France but an avant-garde France.” Starck has been chosen to come up with the French Presidency merchandise. He said “There are many things which are traditionally given out to journalists, ministers, delegates… for the first time in the whole history of the EU, all that will be created with high quality”, instead of “simply sticking little logos on things.” He said he has created “many useful things”, between “ten to fifteen objects” which will be presented in June. He has also come up with “events,” and said, “there will be loads of them”, of all kinds, but mostly cultural.

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia entry for Philippe Starck quotes him telling a German newspaper last month that he plans to retire within two years because his work is "unnecessary and materialistic".

A diplomatic incident - or not

Peter Oborne's thesis about the emergence of an insulated "political class" is looking more and more bang on every day... now a lost bag is a "diplomatic incident."

As Richard North has pointed out, it tells you a lot about media priorities that T5 has been way higher up the bulletins than the new wave of fighting in Iraq.

--

MINISTER'S PLEA AFTER T5 'DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT'

David Miliband issued an appeal for Heathrow authorities to "get their act together" today after revealing that the Terminal 5 debacle had caused a diplomatic incident.

The Foreign Secretary said he had been approached by a furious counterpart during an informal gathering of EU ministers over the weekend.

The unnamed politician apparently lost his luggage while changing planes at Heathrow, and has been warned it may take "weeks" to locate.

Writing on his blog, Mr Miliband said he had been asked to express the man's anger to British Airways and operator BAA.

"One foreign minister I met at the informal meeting in Slovenia over the weekend has fallen victim to the Terminal 5 saga," he wrote.

"He arrived merely to transit, but his bags are nowhere to be seen and it was whispered that it might take weeks.

"He asked me to pass on a message to BA/BAA: 'For goodness' sake, get your act together'."

The Communique from the Franco-British love in is up.

Some of it is rather broad brush, but there are some interesting snippets.

Defence

They have signed off a whole bunch of joint funds and joint defence development projects. Apparently they will:

Cooperate to develop European military capabilities, available to both the EU and NATO, in particular in the fields of :

• Carrier Group operations: by facilitating the generation of a combined maritime strike capability when required for national, EU-led or NATO operations. This capability could be expanded to other European countries able and willing to make a contribution.

• A 400M: France and the UK will pursue a common approach to in service support for interoperability and through life cycle costs optimisation, including common configuration management with other A400M nations; our aim is to cover the requirements of both France and the UK in a single joint contract.

• Helicopters: by addressing critical shortfalls in capability which constrain the deployment of helicopters in operations. Support will be given to initiatives such as pilot operational and advanced training courses, upgrading aircraft and establishment of a trust fund that could improve the availability of helicopters to our European partners and NATO allies. Other nations are invited to contribute to this effort. We support both the EDA and NATO's role in addressing European helicopter capability shortfalls.

Climate Change

Despite the UK's opposition to "green" tariffs it has agreed to the principle of them in the absence of a Kyoto successor.

It calls on the Commission to "Urgently analyse and address the risk of carbon leakage in order for appropriate measures to be implemented in the event that other countries do not commit to taking adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the context of an international agreement. An international agreement remains the best way of addressing this issue."

They also agreed to "Collaborate in the development of a comprehensive EU energy security strategy for the EU" later this year.

Business

The communique calls for "an EU Small Business Act that delivers a package of measures aimed at cutting EU regulation for small businesses, including making more use of exemptions from regulations." We'll believe that when we see it working, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Sarkozy: don't believe the hype

Listening to Sarkozy talking to Parliament. Lashings and lashings of Franco-British history.

But despite the warm words, as soon as you move from the general to the particular things are going to be rather more difficult. For example:

- Sarkozy talks about Britain and France leading on the environment. But is he going to let Britain out of the EU's biofuels target, which the UK now seems to have turned decisively against?

- Sarkozy says he is "open" to CAP reform he means moving from higher subsidies towards higher tariffs. Thats the opposite of what the UK wants.

- When he says "there can't be 27 different immigration" policies he causes a sharp intake of breath in Downing Street. Will Brown really agree to a single EU-wide definition of asylum?

- Sarkozy wants to have a 60,000 strong common intervention force. But that can only divert resources away from the war in Afghanistan - the last thing Brown wants.

There are plenty of other rather tricky issues too. Have a look at our briefing note for the gory details. Nonetheless it will doubtless get gushing coverage on the TV news ce soir. As usual, the devil is in the detail, which is never reported.

european parliament transparancy initiative

Below is an email which we have sent to all UK MEPs today.

It follows a whole series of disturbing reports over recent weeks - for example see:

Times
BBC
Sunday Times
Daily Mail

Most MEPs are away this week - so we probably won't be publishing our first summary of their responses until next week. If we get a good response from UK MEPs we will be broadening it out to all MEPs.

Let us know what you think and about where we should go with this next.

----------------

European Parliament Transparency Initiative

Following a series of damaging stories about the European Parliament in recent weeks we are writing to all UK MEPs asking for your help in restoring trust in the Parliament.

The irregularities discussed in the recent internal audit report paint a picture of widespread abuse of the current expenses system.

Our aim is to find a way to reassure voters that UK MEPs are not in any way implicated in these problems.

That is why we are today writing to all UK MEPs asking them if you will state:

1. Who is your paying agent/service provider?

2. What are his or her book-keeping or accountancy qualifications?

3. How much of the money claimed by your paying agent or service provider since your election has been paid out so far, and how much is still in his or her account?

4. Have you ever claimed less than the full entitlement, or repaid any excess?

5. Do you employ any family members?

6. Are you prepared to list the people currently in your employment (not their salary levels)?

We are not seeking to criticise Members of the Parliament for employing family members. We accept the argument that in many cases family members will work longer hours for less money than anyone else. However, it is essential to ensure that such arrangements are not abused, and we believe transparency is the best way to ensure this.

We believe disclosure of these details will help to restore trust that public money is being well spent. Our aim in this initiative is to restore confidence in the Parliament and MEPs of all parties. We will be publishing regular reports on the progress of the initiative.

We are very grateful for your help in this.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions about the initiative.

Many thanks

Black Wednesday 2008

Gordon Brown returns again and again to Black Wednesday. He is always keen to remind people of Cameron’s role in that credibility-shredding day.

As of yesterday, he might want to stop banging on about it.

As of yesterday the pound has fallen by more since the Prime Minister took office than it did on black Wednesday.

The day before Brown took over the pound bought you 1.49 euros. It is now worth 1.269 euros – a fall of about 14%.

Have a look at the graph. Norman Lamont's era is in tory blue, and Brown's is in fetching pink.

The day before black Wednesday (16 September 1992) the pound got you DM 2.78. After black Wednesday it was about 12% down, before falling to 14% down on 5 October - the low point of Black Wednesday which we have now surpassed.

Brown could argue that the real low point was long after black wednesday in March 1993. But looking at what happened after black wednesday makes the comparison worse. At the equivalent point nine months after black Wednesday the pound was back up to 2.49, or just over 10% down. It was the same after a year.

On the other hand, If the current trend continues the pound will be down about 18-20% by Brown’s first anniversary. Brown's Black Wednesday may be happening more slowly compared to Lamont's - but it could be bigger.

Is this a bad thing? Yes and no.

It certainly isn’t a huge vote of confidence in the UK economy. In fact the pound was the only currency to fall against the dollar yesterday.

But on the positive side, the fact that outside the euro the UK can have appropriate interest rates and can gain competitiveness from a falling pound is extremely good news as the world economy heads downwards.

Euro member states like Spain and Ireland are going to have, er… “interesting times” if they suffer from property crashes.

They can’t cut rates, and the ECB has set its face against taking action. Fair enough: inflation in the eurozone is above target and German exports are doing fine. So the struggling member states of the periphery are on their own.

In the Telegraph Ambrose Evans Pritchard points out that the Fed taking manic action to stave off recession while the Bundesbank ECB sits on its hands is reminiscent of the conditions just before the 1987 crash.

If things do get worse it will be the first real test of the euro system. How will it fare? In the good times member states have done little to prepare for problems and run deficits at the top of the cycle. France and Germany trashed their own fiscal rules at the first sign of trouble in 2002. They have failed to resolve structural questions like the eurozone’s lack of a lender of last resort.

So while the pound might be falling like a stone, this is not like 1992. Remember, Britain’s exit from the ERM was a good thing – it was being in it that was the problem. With interest rates subordinated to an artificial exchange rate target, the ERM became rightly known as the Eternal Recession Mechanism.

At least in 2008 the authorities have the ability to respond if things do get worse: with a free hand on fiscal policy; a flexible exchange rate; and ultimately even control over the monetary target . And if you don’t think they are doing a good job… at least you can get rid of them.

That detailed parliamentary scrutiny in action

"I went with the party leader Nick Clegg because he is an expert on Europe and I didn't want to read the 200 pages of the EU treaty myself."

- Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik, on the referendum debate in the Commons.

Nick Clegg's "tedious, uneventful" week

Over at the Times Red Box. Vaguely patronising, no?


The audience go wild for Clegg.

These are the good guys

There were slightly more MPs in favour of giving their constituents a say than people realise. A few MPs voted for one pro-referendum amendment and not the other last night. Counting the tellers too there were 252 MPs in favor of giving people a say on one or other of the options. There's a list below.

Surprising choices?

Nick Harvey has been pro referendum but sat on his hands last night. We contacted him for a quote.

"Given a free vote, I would personally have supported a referendum on the treaty. But the party line was that an In/Out referendum was a truer representation of our manifesto commitment to a referendum on the earlier Constitution. We were on a three line whip, and I correctly calculated that Liberal Democrat votes were not going to affect the outcome. It would not have served any purpose my resigning if it wouldn't change the result."

It was a shame too that Jon Cruddas didn't vote for a referendum. He has previously called for one, and is a famously principled guy. Maybe he used his "no" vote to wring some kind of concession out of the Government on rights at work, or low incomes, or some other labour issue - which, in fairness, is always his top priority. He is a canny guy and a nice man (maybe even a future Leader?) But it was a still a shame not to have him vote for a referendum, as a lot of others who look up to him would have followed him.

On the heroes side of the equation special mention has to go to the Labour MPs who took all manner of abuse from the whips: Kate Hoey, Gisela Stuart, Frank Field and Graham Stringer.

Ditto Ian Davidson who worked incedibly hard for a referendum. All the others put up with a hell of a lot of abuse for doing the right thing.

Among the Lib Dems Alistair Carmichael, David Heath and Tim Farron all gave up their their jobs to vote for their principles. You really don't get much of that these days. They are all total heroes.

So are the other 13 Liberal Democrats who did the liberal and democratic thing. The mechanics of the house were interesting. As the bulk of the Lib Dems sat there, absurdly, the honourable ones had to literally stand up and be counted. To go and vote they had to push past their colleagues like people arriving late at a cinema. It obviously required a lot of courage and good on them.

The MPs who voted against should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be. Despite the Governments pompous and hypocritical arguments about how "detailed line by line scrutiny" is far better than giving the plebs a say, most of those trooping through the no lobby have never read the text, don't care about the issue, and are little better than Pavlogs dogs, answering to the beep of a pager. As Iain Martin has pointed out, most of them would just have been thinking about what to have for tea.

There's the list of the good guys in the post below.

The full list part one

Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Mr. Richard Benyon
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Mr. Crispin Blunt
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browning, Angela
Burgon, Colin
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Butterfill, Sir John
Cameron, rh Mr. David
Campbell, Mr. Gregory
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Cash, Mr. William
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clappison, Mr. James
Clark, Greg
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Conway, Derek
Cook, Frank
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Cummings, John
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Mr. Dai
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice and Howden)
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Drew, Mr. David
Duddridge, James
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Duncan, Alan
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Evennett, Mr. David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mr. Mark
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fox, Dr. Liam
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Galloway, Mr. George
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gidley, Sandra
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hermon, Lady
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hoey, Kate
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Holmes, Paul
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howard, rh Mr. Michael
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Jones, Mr. David
Jones, Lynne
Kawczynski, Daniel
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew

the full list part two

Leech, Mr. John
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lidington, Mr. David
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Maclean, rh David
MacNeil, Mr. Angus
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Marshall, Mr. David
Mates, rh Mr. Michael
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
McDonnell, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, Mr. Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffat, Anne
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mudie, Mr. George
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, David
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Osborne, Mr. George
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, Mr. James
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Price, Adam
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, rh Mr. Peter
Rosindell, Andrew
Ruffley, Mr. David
Salmond, rh Mr. Alex
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Alan
Simpson, David
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Soames, Mr. Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spink, Bob
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, David
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Tredinnick, David
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Walter, Mr. Robert
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Weir, Mr. Mike
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, Mr. David
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mark
Wilshire, Mr. David
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Wishart, Pete
Wood, Mike
Wright, Jeremy
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard

Look over there!

Isn't it a wee bit obvious, announcing an increase in the National Minimum Wage at PMQs on the day of the Commons referendum vote?

As a piece of news management, it's slightly cack-handed...

Why we should get rid of Euronews

The creepy EU-funded TV station "Euronews" is a menace. Admittedly, not much of a menace because almost no-one watches its hours of dreary euro-coverage. But nonetheless, it is not an organisation with particularly high news values.

It was the only news organisation to say that "I want a referendum" was behind the recent crane stunt (wrong). Having been woken up several times between 3 and 4 AM yesterday by journos who actually wanted to check who was responsible before writing, it was then a bit dissapointing of "Euronews" to nonetheless say that IWR was responsible for what they are calling "operation squirrel". (See report below.)

EuroNews - English Version

March 3, 2008

'Squirrel' action for EU treaty referendum

SECTION: Europa

LENGTH: 151 words

Two members of the 'I Want a Referendum campaign' group (or IWR), in Britain, have staged a protest up a crane near the houses of parliament in Westminster.

They called it 'Operation Squirrel'.

'All we want is a referendum on the new EU treaty, like the govenment promised,' they said.

IWR is a cross-party campaign.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown argues the Lisbon treaty is much less far-reaching than the EU constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005, and so it does not need to be put to a referendum vote.

The crane-climbing comes just a couple of days before the Conservative opposition is due to make a formal proposal for a referendum.

Meanwhile, the IWR are very excited about an unofficial poll they conducted in ten Labour and Liberal Democrat constituencies in February.

The group hailed the response as substantial, and said some 88 percent of the respondents wanted a referendum.