Hurrah!

First of all, allow me to congratulate myself. On this blog and on EUReferendum I said repeatedly, as did the Boss, that Tony Blair was not going to be the President of the European Council and David Miliband was not going to be the Foreign Minister in charge of a non-existent common foreign policy. And so it came to pass. Both stories existed merely in the feverish imagination of the British media and its devoted readers/viewers/listeners, a group that seems to include rather a large number of soi-disant eurosceptics.

That was one reason why I did not sign any petitions or joined any campaigns to prevent Tony Blair from becoming European Council President. The other reason seemed obvious to me but not to a number of people who did sign those petitions and did join those campaigns: it does not matter who becomes the Prez, we do not want anybody.

On the other hand, I do not find myself particularly outraged today. I do not wonder in public whether we asked for a European President because I know we did not and I have known for some time this was going to happen. (As did Daniel Hannan, to be fair, so I do not understand why he is saying these things now.) Bu then, as the Boss has pointed out over on EURef, the media suddenly discovered that there was more to the subject than will-Blair-get-it-or-not just about yesterday.

Nor am I too impressed by he sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth that is coming out of Open Europe, the leading perestroika europhile organization in this country. Their press release quotes Lorraine Mullaly, the Director:

"This whole process has been a stitch-up and a perfect illustration of just how out of touch and anti-democratic the EU now is. 27 EU leaders met behind closed doors over a cosy dinner in Brussels to thrash out who will represent Europe's 500 million citizens on the world stage, without so much as a wink to voters as to what on earth was going on."

"After years of insisting that the Lisbon Treaty would bring the EU closer to citizens, how sad and ironic that the very first big decision was made after a secretive backroom deal which should have no place in a 21st century democracy. This has been EU politics at its very worst."

"Neither Herman Van Rompuy nor Catherine Ashton has any democratic mandate to speak on behalf of Europe's citizens. Most people were denied a say on the Lisbon Treaty which created these posts, and now the jobs themselves have been filled without the slightest input from voters, nor even national parliaments."

"Neither candidate has explained to the public why they should get these jobs. And most people in Europe have never even heard of Herman Van Rompuy or Catherine Ashton, yet here they are to represent us in the global arena. Surely Europe can do better than this?"

"As for the politicians themselves, Herman Van Rompuy is a classic EU federalist who can be relied upon to quietly move EU integration forward. Likewise, Catherine Ashton was instrumental in pushing the Lisbon Treaty through the UK Parliament, which gives a strong indication of the direction she wants to take the EU."

Who is this Europe who can do better than that? And do they mean if someone else had been appointed, say William Hague, then it would have been all right to have an EU Foreign Minister?

Actually, I strongly suspect that to be the case - a couple of different personalities or just people who had personality and Open Europe et al would have lined up pleading for that endlesly elusive Holy Grail, the reform of the European Union. That is why I was so afraid that Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the former President of Latvia and known as that country's Iron Lady might get it. People might have liked and admired her (there is much to like and admire about her) and that would never have done. So, the very good news is that it was the completely unlikeable and unadmirable Herman Van Rompuy who got the job. After all who could be more suitable than the unelected Prime Minister of a country that is falling apart and can be seen as the microcosm of the EU?

I am delighted to say that President Obama has already congratulated the previously appointed Belgian Prime Minister (he did not win any elections to get the job) on being appointed to the European Council Presidency. Can we hear from those Conservative eurosceptics who supported Obama because he was not going to encourage further European integration?

"The United States has no stronger partner than Europe in advancing security and prosperity around the world. These two new positions, and related changes to take effect on December 1 as a result of the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, will strengthen the EU and enable it to be an even stronger partner to the United States," said a White House statement.

The Guardian gives a summary of President Van Rompuy's career, replete with accusations of europhobia against those who are unimpressed by him but carefully not mentioning that he has not been elected to any political position. The Telegraph is a little more detailed in giving the careers of both nonentities European leaders, pointing out that the new Foreign Affairs Chief Panjandrum, Baroness Ashton, has absolutely no diplomatic or foreign affairs experience.

That, as the Boss has pointed out on EURef, is exactly what was aimed at by the Commission. In the ongoing battle for power between the Council and the Commission, the latter has scored a notable victory. Nay, two victories.

Not good news

Charities, in my opinion, should not be funded by governments or transnational organizations. If they are so funded they are not charities. However, it is the government's duty to protect the lives and liberty of a country's citizens. For the moment, that task as far as British people are concerned rests with Her Majesty's Government that has precious little else to do, there being this far larger and more important government, called the European Union.

Among those whose lives must be protected are young people who are kidnapped and abused as part of a forced marriage and who often have no-one to turn to for help. I say young people advisedly: most of them are girls and young women but there are boys and young men, too. They all need help.

So the news that the Government's Forced Marriage Unit has decided to stop funding the only existing helpline for victims of forced marriages is not exactly a good one.

The Honour Network Helpline (HNV) has had more than 6,000 calls from people fearing for their lives or of being forced to marry against their will.

The government's Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) gave charity Karma Nirvana £43,000 to open the line in April 2008.

But the funding ran out a year later and donations have also dried up.

It is not entirely clear from the story whether funding stopped in April or has gone on till now but is about to stop. Sloppy reporting by the BBC as usual.

We do, however, get the usual platitude from some low level civil servant:

A spokeswoman for the Forced Marriage Unit said: "The government takes forced marriage and honour-based violence extremely seriously, and we remain
committed to working with partners across the voluntary sector to support
victims."

And that means what, precisely?

This article in the Independent, mostly about the Forced Marriage Unit issuing guidelines to Embassies and Consulates abroad on the subject of funding of return flights by people abducted into forced marriages, also refers to the slashed funding for the Honour Network Helpline and the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation. I suspect that in this case "rights" mean basic protection. It refers back to an article published a couple of days earlier, so the BBC is about ten days late with the story but, to be fair, other media outlets do not seem to have picked it up at all.

Here we get an answer to my question: the government cash ran out in April and since then, presumably, there was a certain amount of other funding, which is also running out.

The problem of forced marriages is being recognized by MPs and the government but there seems to be no reasonable strategy of dealing with it.

Last year the Home Affairs Select Committee admitted that the known numbers of forced marriages in the UK represented "just the tip of the iceberg" and called on the Government to provide "sufficient" funding for charities that provide emergency help lines and accommodation for victims. Despite this, the amount of cash available from the Forced Marriage Unit for charities specialising in forced marriage and honour violence prevention over the past year was just £65,000. Next year the Forced Marriage Unit's Domestic Programme Fund will be increased to £84,000 but because the grants are only available for new projects, Karma Nirvana and IKWRO have been rejected.

In other words, let's discard an organization that may have acquired some recognition and experience and start up a completely new one. That sounds like a good way of spending money.

The difficulty here is the word charity. Of course, charities should be self-financing. There should be no government money going to charities. So how do we deal with people who are victims of crime that has not been acknowledged or dealt with adequately until very recently?

In response to the second article there was a letter from two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, FCO and Home Office (scroll down). In it they deal with the situation briskly:

The UK continues to lead the world in tackling forced marriage. You yourselves report that the Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) is increasing its financial support for UK projects, from £65,000 last year to £84,000 this year.

We scrutinise all funding bids to select those offering best value for money, which meet accountability criteria. This means that not all applications will be successful. You report the Honour Network being under threat of closure for want of government funds; but the FCO and Home Office have received no formal request to fund the helpline this financial year. Indeed, officials have on several occasions offered to meet the NGO which runs the Honour Network, Karma Nirvana, to discuss how we can best work together. They have not, so far, taken us up on this offer. Additionally, while the Honour Network does immensely valuable work, it is not true to say that it is "Britain's only national helpline". The FMU's national helpline handled over 1,600 calls last year (and can be reached on 020-7008 0151, or, out of hours, via the FCO's Response Centre).

Good to know there is another helpline though whether people in those circumstances are likely to call the FCO's Response Centre is questionable and we know that they do not always get much help from the police.

The story of renewed funding as told in the Independent article is a little different:

A spokeswoman ... admitted that IKWRO had been unsuccessful in finding extra funding but added that Karma Nirvana were welcome to contact them, something Mrs Sanghera says she has tried to do consistently for six months.

The missing words there are those the BBC quoted about them taking forced marriage and attendant violence very seriously. I do think a little more information is needed as to why the IKWRO have been unsuccessful is needed. And could we the different officials co-ordinate their stories, please?

Not all in

A reader of this blog has pointed out that not all the bits of the post-Lisbon EU are in place. There are the Aaland Islands, Swedish speaking but part of Finland. Their regional parliament has not yet accepted the treaty as it applies to them.

It was not easy to find information on the subject in English but eventually I lit on this somewhat peculiar blog. Granhnlaw says that it is about

The Treaty of Lisbon and EU Law for businesses and individuals. EU politics for the democratic European Union 2.0: the Federal Republic of Europe (or the United States of Europe). By Ralf Grahn.

Anything that talks about the democratic European Union is always a joy to read. Ralf Grahn also urges people to discuss "our common European future". Not sure how many have taken this suggestion up but I am always happy to do so. My idea of a common European future might be somewhat different from Mr Grahn's.

However, he does write about the situation in the Aaland Islands and is suitably annoyed by the uppitiness of the inhabitants. How dare they stand in the way of the common European future? How dare they demand various rights for themselves? Well, maybe there is something in history that urges them to be bloody-minded.

So the situation, as Mr Grahn says on the basis of Swedish language websites is as follows:

On 16 November 2009 the Åland Parliament plenary has tabled the report for debate on 23 November.

Approval of the Lisbon Treaty requires a qualified majority of two thirds of the 30 members in the regional parliament, and the decision concerns the application of the Lisbon Treaty in the Åland Islands, with regard to the areas with autonomous legislation.

The Lisbon Treaty enters into force on 1 December 2009, and it was written on the assumption that it applies to the whole territory of Finland, including the Åland Islands (according to the exemptions contained in the Åland Protocol).

Finland formally ratified the EU Treaty of Lisbon 30 September 2008.

I very much fear that horrid hectoring bullies of the Ralf Grahn variety will triumph and the defiant Islands will sign up. But I cannot help wishing that they would imitate that little village in Gaul that refused to be conquered by the Romans or to be divided into three parts.

Entertainment

There will be a video later on to cheer everyone up on this grey and blustery day (well, in Britain) but, in the meantime, enjoy this advice to the hapless President Obama on how he should behave when abroad. Try not to drink any tea or coffee while you are reading it or your monitor and keyboard might suffer.

Is something stirring?

A seriously disturbed commenter on ToryBoyBlog has described the Boss of EUREf as “a bitter ex-UKIP researcher” and, without bothering to find out how to spell my name, added for good measure: “His partner is the dreadful helen Samuelly who manages to antagonise anyone she deals with.” As the person in question hides under the name of Better Off Out and gives no website or blog link I cannot tell who it is though I suspect that his or her suggestion that we are paid either by the EU or MI5 (if only!) is libellous. One cannot sue someone who is too cowardly to give a real name and, clearly, Tim Montgomerie and Jonathan Isaby are not responsible for some fruitcake who chooses to comment on their blog. But I thought our readers on this blog might like to know. My response, I thought, was a model of restraint.

The somewhat unpleasant discussion is going on in response to a posting by Tim Montgomerie, entitled The Future of Euroscepticism. I shall refrain from making some obvious comments about Conservatives, euroscepticism, streets, being bitten and recognizing. Mr Montgomerie, staunch Tory though he is, happens to be a member of Better Off Out. (We noted its re-launch in April and updated a few days later.)

The idea of being lectured by Conservatives at this stage in the game on whither euroscepticism is going would be quite infuriating if it were not quite so ridiculously funny. Tim Montgomerie, I am sad to say, compounds this problem by starting his posting with this sentence:

It's been a disappointing few weeks for Euroscepticism and for the Eurosceptic movement but The TaxPayers' Alliance are leading the way in consolidating popular unhappiness at the EU.

None of that is exactly accurate but one cannot blame organizations like the TPA and Conservative Home from closing ranks in the six months before the next election. The truth is that the last few weeks have not disappointed any real eurosceptic or so I shall call them for want of a better name. We expected nothing else from the Boy-King of the Conservative Party. Indeed, this blog and EURef predicted several times that he would duck out of a referendum. We also predicted that eventually the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty will go through.

On the other hand, we are convinced (well, I am convinced and the Boss is coming round) that this was a pyrrhic victory. The dirt and nastiness of the last eight years, which is how long it took to get this treaty through, the bullying and shameless manipulation have all contributed to turn many people’s opinion against the EU. The notion that we might actually come out and survive is gaining ground, if very slowly. What worries the Conservative Party and its outposts as well as front organizations (Open Europe, TPA and others) is that they might not benefit from this change.

The other slight error is the one about the TPA “leading the way in consolidating popular unhappiness at the EU”. Actually, the TPA is reversing the debate by concentrating on financial matters: how much we pay in and how utterly fraudulent is all is. These points have been discussed for decades with very little effect.

Given the general incompetence and lack of honesty in governments and regulatory authorities in this country, other countries and the EU, most people fulminate a bit when having a drink with their friends then shrug their shoulders and move on. It is the other issues, the lack of accountability, lack of democracy, destruction of our constitutional and legal system and the appalling regulatory structure whose aim seems to be purely destructive that rouse real anger in people.

That is why the issue of the Lisbon referendum has become a flashpoint: this was specifically promised by all three (well, all right, both) parties and both, Labour and Conservatives, have reneged on it. No amount of discussion about the cost of it will make up for that. And that makes the last few weeks exceedingly good for real eurosceptics – dead wood is being cleared out.

If Conservative Home, the TPA and such blogs as Iain Dale’s are all cautiously probing the idea of Britain being outside that organization, one can safely say that there has been something of a shift in the debating positions. Mr Dale, incidentally, makes two very good points. In this posting, which is really about a forthcoming BBC programme on what would happen if Britain left the EU, he pours contempt on the europhiliac position that we would be out on our own with nobody trading with us.

Ridiculous. As if European businesses wouldn't want to sell us their goods if we were outside the EU!

Indeed. And I agree with him on Lord Pearson’s comment that “they would be glad to get rid of us”. They would not be all that glad and not just because of the money we put in. As it happens, Britain is one of the most enthusiastic members, always thinking of new regulations that cannot be passed back home and have to be imposed through the EU, as well as implementing rules as soon as it is required and sometimes before.

I also find it amusing that Mr Dale reminds the TPA that their famed new cinema ad is quite similar to an old 18 Doughty Street video.

Well, what of the TPA’s new cinema advert? There are, as it happens, strict rules about political advertising in this country and all the TPA could do is produce what must have been a reasonably expensive ad for their new book, Ten Years On Without The European Union by Dr Lee Rotherham, the TPA’s expert on the EU. The books is free to all who order it, so Tim Montgomerie’s comment about 22,000 ordered already is not all that meaningful. Would people pay for it, is the question.

Anyway, I have not seen the book yet as the TPA are reluctant to reply to my e-mails. (And what do you expect, hmmm? I hear someone muttering.) So I have to go by what they say on their website about it.

The book is a sort of a utopian fantasy about Britain being outside the EU and managing very well, thank you, all the problems that, for example, small business owners faced being the fault of the EU. There are other blogs that deal with farmers, fishermen, MPs and the workforce (there’s an expression from the glorious past). All tell us how wonderfully easy life will be outside the EU.

Well, there is no harm in it. People should get used to the idea that there is life outside the EU though it might be more useful to examine how we get from here to there and to accept that there will have to be many negotiations, agreements and reforms before we can achieve the state of utopian ecstasy. The trouble is that once you start talking ordinary politics people might ask awkward questions. Much easier to present a rosy picture that rather mindless eurosceptics accept and gloat over while the rest of the country continues to shrug its shoulders.

A more interesting point is the BBC. The idea of a programme, broadcast this evening at 8.30 and repeated on Sunday, 22nd at 10.30 (all in the evening) about the very possibility of Britain being outside the EU is intriguing.

The article on the website makes two points that we, on this blog, would find it hard to disagree with:

Up to 55% of those asked in recent British opinion polls say they would support it. But it's hardly ever discussed in polite political society. What is this great taboo? Britain leaving the European Union.

After all the constitutional wrangling and embarrassing referendum results within the EU in recent years, reluctance to talk about this among the EU mainstream may be greater than ever.

They then spend some time discussing the so-called heresy that in the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty there is a possibility of a member state leaving, without explaining that the decision depends largely on other member states agreeing to it. And so it goes, with the usual canards about Continental member states allegedly thinking that it would be a good thing if Britain left, for which there is no evidence; europhiliacs threatening us to a return of boiled mutton and cabbage and so on and so on.

None of that matters. Even if the programme this evening is absolutely dire, what really matters is that the BBC has decided that this subject needs to be aired and the question to be asked is whether Britain can survive outside the EU. The BBC asking that is a little like the Pope wondering whether that chap Luther had a point after all.

We have complained (whined, some people might say) in the past that we have been sidelined and our work not acknowledge while other, grander, better funded and less well researched programmes have been touted by the media and other members of the political class. But we can, severally and together, take some credit for this change in attitudes.

Finally, the best evidence yet: Daniel Hannan, darling of the Tory eurosceptics has written a blog in which he sort of makes the case for Britain leaving the EU. It is, as you will note, complete with one of his usual videos and, well, um, it turns out to be another plug for the TPA and Mr Hannan’s old friend, Dr Rotherham. So, as usual, Daniel Hannan, MEP is treading very carefully. But, at least, he mentions the unmentionable in the heading.

UPDATE: I have now received an e-mail from the TPA, which informed me that they had not got my own missives (entirely possible), offered to send me the book (I said as I had done before that I can pick it up) and thanked me somewhat ironically for giving a "grudging" plug to their Great EU Debate. As the Boss of EUReferendum said to me, even a grudging plug is more than any of our blogs gets for them. Could we join the great debate? Should we rename EURef as The Great Eurosceptic Blog?

Who will rid us?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has been having a certain amount of trouble keeping the Church he is supposed to be in charge of together, has been pontificating again. This time, he addressed the TUC Economics Conference (there's glory for you) and explained that he thought higher taxes were a GOOD THING. Whether his audience agreed with him we do not know as the article was written ahead of the event.

Why are higher taxes a good thing? Well, because unlimited growth is neither possible nor desirable, it being one of those things that erode our habitat and our society so clearly we need to control it through taxation.

Dr Williams claimed that the “fantasies of unlimited growth” had led to a “vicious cycle” in which consumers are encouraged to buy more goods, which also uses up limited energy and raw materials.

Instead, he said the economy should be geared towards creating a secure and sustainable environment for families.

As part of this, the archbishop said: “We have to ask about ‘green taxes’ (including ‘green’ tax breaks) that will check environmental irresponsibility and build up resources to address the ecological crises that menace us.

“It is of course connected with other proposals about currency exchange taxation – the ‘Tobin tax’ idea: the point is that we should be thinking about taxation neither as an unreasonable burden on enterprise nor as a simple mechanism of redistribution but as a potentially sophisticated tool for long-term ‘economy’ – housekeeping.

“Taxation builds a habitat – already, quite properly, through state welfare provision, but potentially in other less familiar ways.”

The man seems to be economically, historically and politically ignorant. Resources are not limited in that new ones can be found or invented as they have been for centuries. One of the things that restrains development of that kind is government control and high taxation.

Furthermore, has His Bloviation actually examined what high taxation and the ever growing welfare state as well as the ever growing bureaucracy, which snaffles up a very large part of the tax, have done to this country, its society and its habitat? Truly, he exhibits the infantilism of the Left.

You are kidding me!

Officials running a fencing competition in Austria did not have a recording of the Israeli national anthem, Hatikva, so they could not play it when the 14 year-old Dana Stralinkov won the gold medal and the 13 year old Alona Komarov won the bronze.

The two teenagers stood on the podium and waited. When nothing happened they started singing Hatikva themselves. The rest of the team, their coach and supporters in the audience joined in.

Let me see: there were 120 competitors from 20 countries. How many recordings were missing? Some, a few or just one? A stupid move, anyway. Given that Israel seems to have had a team with potential winners in it, the chances of having to play Hatikva were high. What did the Austrian officials think they would do then?