But it's Brexit that pitches us into the unknown

The world goes on despite the horrors in it and, to  be fair, this decision was taken by the members of the Toy Parliament on the 12th that is a day before les événements in Paris. One of the biggest arguments of the europhiliacs is fear of the unknown - Brexit will plunge us into outer darkness and bring back the ten plagues that had been  inflicted on Egypt ... oh sorry, I seem to have been carried away. Well, anyway, if not the ten plagues then many other bad things and, above all, UNCERTAINTY. Life is full of uncertainty and so is politics as long as it is more or less free and democratic. (Actually there was not that much certainty under Stalin either but that's another story.)

What we say in return is that there is absolutely no certainty about staying in the EU. The recent crises, first the eurozone then the migrants, have been described as  being more or less existential for the European project but they happened. Could they have been predicted? To some extent yes; in detail no. That's just the way it is.

More to the point, the EU is always on the move - it is not a stationary project but an evolutionary one and, should the people of Britain vote to stay in, they will speedily find that once again they were in something they did not vote for.

That brings me back to the Toy Parliament.

MEPs endorsed a proposal on electoral reform Wednesday (11 November) that would have citizens vote for the EU Commission president and Europe-wide party lists in 2019. If member states sign up to the idea, the reforms to the 1976 EU electoral law would mean the EU-wide "top candidates" for the Commission presidency would have to stand in the European Parliament election.

MEPs voted by 315 votes to 234 in favour, with 55 abstentions, on a proposal designed to strengthen the European character of the EP elections.

“The European Union today, and the European Community back in 1976, are two different worlds. Europe has changed. The world has changed. The European Parliament has changed dramatically. We needed to change this law,” Danuta Huebner, a Polish centre-right MEP who co-wrote the report, told press Thursday.

The idea is for citizens to have two votes, one for national lists of candidates and one for an EU-wide list of European parties. Leading the European lists would be the candidates for the presidency of the Commission.

The chances this will not go through or not this time. But it is there, on the agenda, and it will not be mentioned by those who assure us that staying in the EU is knowing exactly what we sign up for. EU-wide party lists? Hmmm.

Somewhat ironic

Every year around this time the European Parliament announces its nominees for the Sakharov Prize, so-called because of the great scientist and human rights activist Andrei Sakharov. On their own account

The prize is awarded every year to honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression.The nominations will be formally presented on Monday 28 September during a joint meeting of the foreign affairs and development committees and the human rights subcommittee. The winner will be announced in October.

Who was nominated this year? Mostly the names cannot be faulted though, clearly, we know more about some of them than about others.

From the Middle East we have Raif Badawi, a blogger who is in prison in Saudi Arabia, still under threat of inhumane punishment though the flogging after the first portion has been postponed time after time. As a blogger in a country where I can write what I want without worrying about the police breaking down my door at dawn I feel particularly for my colleagues in less fortunate circumstances.

From the Horn of Africa we have Edna Adan Ismail, a Somali activist for the abolition of female genital mutilation and a former government minister. While I am not particularly interested in former or present government ministers in that part of the world, I do find activists for the abolition of female genital mutilation in a country where its prevalence is extremely high and where it is dangerous to speak up against it worthy of support and highly admirable.

I know less about Venezuela but find it not unreasonable to have Political prisoners in Venezuale as as well as the democratic opposition in Venezuela embodied by the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática among the nominees.

So we come to two nominees about whom I know a great deal and who can be said to represent many other people, murdered or imprisoned in Russia or kidnapped from Ukraine and the Baltic States; Boris Nemtsov, the former Leader of the Russian opposition, murdered in full view of the Kremlin and Nadiya Savchenko, Ukrainian military pilot and a member of the Verkhovna Rada and of Ukraine’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who was captured on 18 June 2014 and illegally transferred to Russia.

So we come to the West where the nominees are of a lesser calibre and face slightly lower levels of danger: Antoine Deltour, a former Price Waterhouse Coopers auditor who revealed secret tax rulings with multinational companies in Luxembourg to journalists and a man who seems to be on the side of the taxman; and Stéphanie Gibaud who uncovered tax evasion and money laundering by UBS AG, also apparently more interested in the rights of the tax collector than anything else.

And finally, the nomination that made me laugh, the one that has made nonsense of the whole effort: Edward Snowden, the man whose love of liberty is so high that he has decided to live in Russia, the country two of whose victims have been nominated to represent, as I said above, many others.

My own prediction that this year the prize will go to Boris Nemtsov, who is dead and is, therefore, uncontroversial. As it happens, his daughter Zhanna, a journalist, has been hounded out of Russia because of the statements she made about her father's murder, can accept it in his name. That is what I suspect will happen. But one can never tell. It could go to Edward Snowden, which will be highly entertaining.

Too little, too late

During what appears to have been a stormy session in the European Parliament, addressed at length with a very large number of cliches but not inspiration by Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the EU Commission, the Greens came up with what EUObserver calls a "practical solution".

Green MEP Philippe Lamberts came up with a practical solution, proposing that the EP's Strasbourg building be given to migrants while sessions are held in Brussels instead.

The EP's Strasbourg building is empty for the vast majority of the year and despite calls from MEPs to stop the travelling circus to France, plenaries are still held there once a month.

Too little, too late. This blog came up with a similar but far more extensive idea a little while ago:

However, there is a way in which the Eurocracy can be very useful. It so happens that both in Brussels and in Strabourg there are "European Quarters" with large buildings with many rooms and excellent facilities. Every year very large sums are allocated to the running of those Quarters and the paying of those who work in them from Commissioners and Members of the Toy Parliament down. No need to build new processing centres, no need to allocate new funds - take over the European Quarters, evict those who work there now, turn them into those centres and use the money allocated for their running to sort out the refugee (or migrant) crisis. If we also add this year's salaries of all those who work there we shall have a more than adequate sum to house and feed people temporarily while we sort out who they are, where they will go to and what they might want to do there.

Until Herr Juncker or any member of the Toy Parliament proposes such a solution and starts putting it into place, I refuse to believe in their good intentions being anything but hot air and a desire to turn the crisis into another tool for strengthening central EU control over the member states.

Some costing of the Toy Parliament

So, would you like to know a little bit about the amount of money that is spent on the Toy Parliament? Just a little bit? Well, here we are.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked a Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the amount of subsidy paid to each of the European Parliament’s political groups annually.

That is, as readers of this blog must realize, just a part of what goes on that institution. However, the answer is interesting:

The annual accounts for all groups are available on the European Parliament (EP) website. The last year for which figures are available is 2013:

European People’s Party: €21,680,180 [£16,911,933.63]

Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats: €15,387,789.85 [£12,003,159.53]

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE): €6,718,994.35 [£5,243,548.25]

Greens/EFA: €4,365,639.83 [£3,407,078.2]

GUE/NGL: €2,657,578.33 [£2,074,055.0]

European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR): €4,046,038.85 [£3,157,036.06]

Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD): €2,614,225.43 [£2,039,484.50]

Non -Attached: €1,315,501 [£1,026,286.36]

There is also a helpful link to the accounts.

Fun and games with UKIP

[Health warning: yes, this is another posting about UKIP but it is not entirely critical of that benighted organization or, at least, it is hightly critical of those who have attacked it recently. UKIP-bots take note.]

UKIP have managed to get themselves into the news again on two accounts, neither of which has anything to do with their policies (and that might be just as well). Both stories have caused a great deal of indignation and a certain amount of amusements. I plead guilty to the second attitude.

The first story, as British readers of this blog probably know, is about that ridiculous calypso that was written by former BBC DJ Mike Read (no, I've never heard of him before this either) and performed with a mock-Caribbean accents at some fringe event, went on YouTube and was attacked as being racist. At first, Read said that he considered the accusations preposterous and the Dear Leader called on the faithful to get the calypso to No 1 in the pop charts.

After that things became a little difficult. For one thing the words of the song were published and turned out to be astonishingly stupid. For another, people who are not completely obsessed with UKIP either pro or con (I expect I shall be accused of being one of those by some UKIP-bots but I do not think the amount of time I have spent on them over the years of writing this blog or being co-editor of EURef warrants that accusation), wondered why they should have picked on the calypso as a particularly cool, up-to-date and funky kind of music.

As it happens, I have a much loved LP (or vinyl as they are called now, having become rather fashionable again) of Harry Belafonte singing calypsos in a mock Caribbean accent, Belafonte's own accent being pure American. So far as I know there were no problems with that but I don't know for sure. The LP (vinyl) was inherited by me from my father who acquired it in the 1950s, possibly on one of his two trips to London from Budapest where we lived at the time. Does that throw any light on the strange UKIP decision? Well, yes, I think it does. This is all part and parcel of their nostalgia for that rather unpleasant decade.

The faux-outrage over the racism of the song has achieved its aim and former DJ Mike Read "has apologised for his Ukip-supporting calypso song and asked for it to be withdrawn from sale following criticism that it was racist". Stupid the idea may have been but the idea that somebody must always apologize and something must always be suppressed if anybody is offended and, particularly, if the word racist can be bandied round, is turning British politics into a specie of blancmange.

The story is not over.

Read’s song just failed to make the top 20 in the midweek rundown of the official singles chart, debuting at number 21 according to the list published on Wednesday. A spokesman said sales of the song to date would continue to contribute to the official top 40, despite Read’s decision to withdraw it.

It could mean another dilemma for the BBC over whether to include the song in its official top 40 programme on Radio 1 on Sunday, in a potential echo of the row over the anti-Thatcher protest song, Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead.

That, of course, was not withdrawn from sale as it was not racist and offended only in the matter of good taste. But it did not get to No 1 either.

Here, by the way, is UKIP's Culture Spokesman, Peter Whittle, attacking the attackers. It is not clear whether he actually liked the song but his political point is a very reasonable one. [Full disclosure: Peter is a good friend.] I would say that the faux outrage has not exactly harmed UKIP while an understanding of the silliness would have done. As it is, they can proclaim that they are victims of the modern mania for censorship of anything that can be described as racist.

Let us now turn to the other story, that of their new ally in the European Parliament. The Toy Parliament does not run on the basis of parties but groups and there are rules about how many parties and countries have to be represented in each group in order to be able to claim the handsome hand-outs for the MEPs' entertainment hard work. For a while it looked like Nigel Farage had managed to put his Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD)group together (no, I don't know what that title means either but they had to think of something and the others are not much better). Then potential disaster struck: the Latvian MEP Iveta Grigule (more here) decided to leave the group, thus making it untenable in Toy Parliament terms.

As ever, we heard accusations and counter-accusations. Nigel Farage "has accused the president of the European parliament, Martin Schulz, of "effectively blackmailing" Grigule by offering her the leadership of an overseas delegation in a deliberate attempt to silence Ukip and the eurosceptic EFDD".

Ms Grigule retaliated by saying that if she had been susceptible to "blackmail" she would have taken Mr Farage up on his offer of the group's Vice-Presidency and, anyway, she had already managed to fall out with the Dear Leader over his working methods that she characterized as being rude. Nor was she impressed by the rest of the UKIP MEPs.

"In July this year I already suggested to Nigel Farage that he should change his working style. The fact that he did not take my suggestion into account this whole time is not right," she said.

"I do not find it acceptable that MEP’s turn their backs on the European anthem or the flags of member states. I do not find shouting or rude remarks acceptable during plenary sessions, or that the majority of colleagues from Great Britain do not take part in the work of committees. I warned Farage, that if nothing changes in this attitude, I will leave the group.

"Of course, this style of working may be beneficial to Farage as his popularity in Britain grows, but to other group delegations this isolationism from the other Parliamentary groups disrupts the ability to work. This was a road leading to nowhere."

The only thing I can add to that story is that it would seem that neither Mr Farage nor Ms Grigule know the difference in meaning between blackmail and bribery.

As it happens, there are always odd MEPs hanging around the Toy Parliament who can be bribed or blackmailed, depending on your use of the English language, to join a group and the Dear Leader found one: he is the Polish MEP Robert Iwaszkiewicz (more here) of the Congress of the New Right and a man who has distinguished himself by being a Holocaust denier and a supporter of domestic violence. Not a particularly prepossessing chap and neither is his party.

Korwin-Mikke [the party's leader], whose party has two remaining MEPs and received 7.5% support in Poland during May’s European parliamentary elections, is one of the most outspoken figures within the far-right groupings of parliament.

In July, he declared in English that the minimum wage should be “destroyed” and said that “four million niggers” lost their jobs in the US as a result of President John F Kennedy signing a bill on the minimum wage in 1961. He went on to claim that 20 million young Europeans were being treated as “negroes” as a result of the minimum wage. He refused to apologise and was fined 10 days of allowances for his comments.

Korwin-Mikke has also called for the vote to be taken away from women, has claimed that the difference between rape and consensual sex is “very subtle” and said that Adolf Hitler was “probably not aware that Jews were being exterminated”.

Of course, saying that Hitler was not aware that Jews were being exterminated, stupid though that is, does not constitute Holocaust denials but we can say with some certainty that the Polish party, its members and its leader are not people one wants to have much to do with partly because of their opinions and, even more, because of their level of intelligence.

The problem is that as long as we are in the EU and send members to the Toy Parliament (on a very low vote, it is true) we have to deal with people like Mr Iwaszkiewicz and Mr Korwin-Mikke, as well as people who either deny the extent of Communist crimes or consider the gulags to have been quite a good idea. We do not elect these people but others do.

The outrage over a perfectly ordinary if slightly shoddy political transaction has been deafening. I have even seen demands that UKIP should be banned in Britain. A party that has received a fair number of votes should be banned, I asked. That is your democratic suggestion? I got a lot of huffing and puffing in return and reminders that the British Union of Fascists was banned and Sinn Fein was kept off the airwaves for some years. The BUF was banned durign the war, I replied, as they were seen with some (though not total) justification as aiding and abetting the enemy. Incidentally, I added, the CPGB that was doing the same between the autumn of 1939 and June 22, 1941, actively inciting members of the armed forces to desert, was not banned. And Sinn Fein was not actually banned, merely not allowed to speak on air because they were and are closely linked to a terrorist organization, the IRA. UKIP has merely done something many of us find distasteful. It is not illegal and it cannot be described as aiding and abetting the enemy. Should all those British parties who sit in groups with well known members of Communist parties be banned? There was more huffing and puffing and, in one case, a highly ironic denial that anybody denies the gulags. There was no reference to the victims of collectivization.

But I digress.

Will the second story help UKIP? Not as much as the first one, as Mr Iwaszkiewicz, the latest addition to the EFDD group is rather unsavoury and a good many UKIPers, not to mention their supporters and quasi-supporters are embarrassed by the story. Does it matter electorally? Probably not. I have no doubt the story will be rehashed during the electoral campaign next year but there are plenty of embarrassments to be brought up against all parties in the Toy Parliament. The truth is that the overwhelming majority in this country does not care about that institution.

A far more serious story is the one produced by the Evening Standard yesterday:

Britons have turned against the idea of quitting the European Union despite the rise of Ukip, exclusive new polling reveals today.

It found that a clear majority would vote to stay in the EU in a referendum — marking a dramatic turnaround from two years ago. The findings suggest Ukip’s surge this year has less to do with anti-EU sentiment and more to do with anxieties about immigration or disenchantment with the bigger parties.

Fifty-six per cent of people said they would vote to stay in if there were a re-ferendum now, while just 36 per cent would vote to leave, according to the Ipsos MORI poll. Excluding “don’t knows”, that amounts to a clear divide of 61 to 39 per cent.

In November 2012, the same question found that 44 per cent wanted to stay and 48 wanted to get out. At the time, support for Nigel Farage’s party stood at a mere three per cent, compared with the current level of 16 per cent — a record figure for an Ipsos MORI poll. But while support for Ukip has risen by 13 percentage points over the two-year period, support for quitting the EU has dropped by 12 points.

Backing for EU membership is at its highest since 1991 — before the Maastricht Treaty which increased integration and created the European Union out of the European Community.

The turn-around is not as dramatic as all that and is probably temporary. Opinion on the subject tends to be volatile but it has never reached the sort of support for Brexit that would indicate a victory in the referendum. Whether that is despite or because of the rise of UKIP is arguable. This blog has argued for some time that the present-day UKIP is a hindrance to the cause of British exit. It has certainly not been a help.

Another conclusion that ought to be drawn but probably will not be by people obsessed with the idea of a referendum is that we are certain to lose it and should turn our attention more widely (yes, I know the Boss has been working on it) to the question of how we can win it, should it ever come about.

And who says there is no point to MEPs?

Well, I do, for one. However, it seems that I may be wrong. There is some point to them and not just in terms of them getting salaries and expenses as well as strutting round, producing unreadable articles in local newspapers. I can't wait for all that whining from UKIP MEPs (assuming they are still in that party and group by the end of the year) about them not being able to achieve anything in the European Parliament because .... well, really because there is not a great deal they can achieve, given the position of the Toy Parliament in the EU and its structure.

I am glad to say that the Speciality Food Magazine has set me right on this subject. I don't mean they set me right on the notion that UKIP MEPs will whine but on the general pointlessness of MEP behaviour. It seems that some MEPs manage to find themselves entertainment employment by providing funds for British food products to be sold to various countries in the Far East.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am very happy with the idea of British food being sold in other countries and, indeed, I happen to know that much of it is, from luxury items like good marmalade to meat and dairy produce, such as cheese. Ever more American delis, for instance, stock cheese from the British Isles which they buy through Neal's Yard Dairy. Many of those cheeses are produced by smallish producers and the reason they are bought in this country and abroad is because they are good. That is apparently insufficient: we must have the European Parliament allocating funding to a few chosen producers, usually rather large ones and ensure that small ones are left out and innovation is not encouraged.

Graham Watson, South West Liberal Democrat MEP [well, actually, he has just lost his seat in the general massacre of the Lib-Dims] said, "This new scheme will give Westcountry farmers, fishermen and brewers the opportunity to bring a taste of the South West to the world. I was pleased to see last year an EU-funded trade mission to Japan and South Korea to promote our very own West Country Farmhouse Cheddar.

"The European Parliament has today ensured that traditional products with European protected status like Cornish pasties will be given extra funding to boost their exports and win over new customers abroad."

The West country products receiving the boost include West Country Farmhouse Cheddar, Cornish pasties, Somerset cider brandy, Gloucestershire perry, Cornish clotted cream, Gloucestershire old spot pork and Fal oysters.

 Though Sir Graham Watson is out others will step into his shoes or follow in his footsteps. There are many opportunities there for lobbying and wining and dining our representatives in the Toy Parliament.

Goodness me, how generous

Apparently, the EU is suffering from "democratic legitimacy shortcomings". Gosh. No-one tells me anything. There I was thinking that the election for the Toy Parliament tomorrow was the acme of democracy and democratic legitimacy. Well, apparently, it ain't so. Or not much.

Anyway, Eva Kjer Hansen, Chairman of the European Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament and formerly agriculture minister and social affairs minister has noticed this and decided to do something about it. She has come up with a proposal that, in her own words, the EU "can't refuse". Well, they probably can or, even more probably, they can accept it and turn it to their own advantage but who are we to blight Ms Hansen's eagerness to "restore" democratic legitimacy to the European project?

Let’s imagine that Europe’s national parliaments all had the right of initiative. Each member of a national parliament could go to his or her constituency and invite citizens to bring forward good ideas that could, if they have local, regional, national and pan-European support, be turned into EU legislation.

Right now, national parliaments can only obstruct European legislation by handing the Commission a “yellow card”. But why not let the EU’s national parliaments participate in the legislative process by issuing political opinions that EU institutions are obliged to take into account. Why not let national parliaments propose new initiatives just as the Council and the European Parliament can already do today?

Well, I am overwhelmed. You mean having taken away the right to legislate the EU should now hand back to the national parliaments the right to make proposals all by themselves that could be turned into EU legislation? That will give the EU democratic legitimacy? My word, there is a bold proposal. The odd thing about this article is that, apparently, Ms Hansen thinks that it really is a bold and controversial idea that many will criticize and in the second part of the article she goes to great lengths to justify and defend it.

An international alliance of eurosceptic parties?

The Financial Times is somewhat sniffy about the proposed electoral pact between Geert Wilders' Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) and Marine Le Pen's National Front (FN) but that is to be expected. In fact, it is rather sniffy about the parties themselves, not bothering to differentiate much between them and calling them extreme right-wing and all anti-EU parties "nationalistic and xenophobic". Why is it, asks one rhetorically, that all parties, regardless of other political ideas, who prefer their countries to be independent and self-governing as well as have more accountable governments, are described as extremist while those who campaign for greater European integration (not a very popular idea across the member states of the EU) as moderates?

Anyway, back to the electoral pact.

Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, two of Europe’s best-known far-right leaders, vowed to fight side by side in a coalition of nationalist parties in next year’s European Parliament elections to bring down the “monster in Brussels”.

The anti-EU alliance between the French National Front party (FN) and the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) will seek to attract other eurosceptic groups as they try to capitalise on the economic misery and high unemployment plaguing the continent.

Pretty bad, eh? Fancy trying to capitalize on the fact that certain political decisions have made the economic situation across Europe considerably worse than it would have been otherwise. Shockingly bad behaviour.

The two party leaders intend to campaign together next year in the European elections and to form a group with, they hope, other parties in the European Parliament, thus shifting somewhat the debate or what passes for debate in that institution. Among parties that they hope will join them is our very own UKIP but the Dear Leader has remained aloof, claiming with justification that certain past political pronouncements by the FN and its then leader, Papa Le Pen are incompatible with UKIP's stance. Indeed, it would be an excellent idea if the FN would distance itself from those anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying comments. Mr Wilders has also spoken of Belgium's Vlaams Belang and Italy's Lega Norda as possible allies.

Other anti-EU parties that could consider joining forces in next year’s European polls include the Danish People’s party, Finland’s The Finns, Austria’s Freedom party, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland and Italy’s Five Star Movement.

However, eurosceptics have often had divergent views, ranging from ending the EU to quitting the euro or simply forming a looser union. The divisions have often outstripped points in common. For example, Alternative für Deutschland and the Five Star Movement, led by comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo, would find it difficult to form an alliance with a neo-fascist party like the FN.

Nevertheless, analysts said the FN-PVV alliance had potential because the two leaders agree on several issues, including reducing EU powers, imposing tougher immigration laws and reinstating border controls. The two remain divided on gay rights, openness to Islam and some socioeconomic matters.

Covered by the BBC and the Washington Post that is a little less biased than our own media, perhaps because it is all so far away for them and they cannot  imagine the EU ever breaking up. 

Not just French Senators

As this blog pointed out, certain election monitors, namely a few French Senators were falling over themselves to announce to the world that the recent election in Azerbaijan was free, fair and in keeping with the best democratic traditions despite a few minor problems like results being published before anything even happened.

It seems that the Senators in question are not alone. The same opinion was voiced by the representatives of two Toy Parliamentary Institutions, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) of which Azerbaijan is a member and which we, according to some, must not leave under any circumstances.

The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) condemned the election, citing the lack of a level playing field, limitations on fundamental freedoms, intimidation of voters and candidates, a restrictive media environment and “significant problems ... throughout all stages of the election day processes.”

At the same time, the European Parliament (EP) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Pace) praised the election and said they observed a "free, fair and transparent" process around election day.

What could be the reason for this, asks Holly Ruthrauff of EUObserver.

Like other autocrats in the region and beyond, Azerbaijan's President, Ilham Aliyev, seeks a veneer of international legitimacy and calls in pseudo election observers who assess the election positively, regardless of its integrity.

Such observers may be motivated by various interests, political or economic, or even, reportedly, by gifts of Azerbaijan’s famous caviar.

This phenomenon has unfortunately become a typical part of elections in the region, as well as globally. The trend of internationals overlooking a blatantly undemocratic election to cast legitimacy on the incumbent winner is only accentuated in an oil-rich state like Azerbaijan.

But surely, she pleads, the EP and PACE are not fake election observers but real organizations devoted to the idea of democracy, freedom and transparency.

They regularly send delegations of elected parliamentarians to observe elections and have committed themselves to do so in a credible manner.

Both are signatories of the UN Declaration of Principles for International Election Observers, a document signed by 45 international observer groups expressly to avoid such situations.

The declaration requires observer groups to conduct comprehensive observation, taking into account the entire election process and placing election day into this context.

Indeed, it was the long-term findings of the ODIHR that the EP and Pace disavowed by issuing a separate statement, contrary to established practice.

So what caused this behaviour? Alas, we get no explanations merely hand-wringing. Dare I suggest that the words oil and caviare might be part of that explanation, at least as a starting point?

There will be a new member in our real government

Croatia is on her way into the EU, despite the obvious problems some of the existing member states in Eastern Europe and the Balkans are having to deal with. Naturally, one of that country's representatives will be a member of our real government, to wit the Commission. Croatia will be given the Consumer Protection portfolio and discussions are going on as to who in particular should hold it.

The country's nominee is Neven Mimica, currently Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs and European Integration and a reputedly tough negotiator (though what exactly he has managed to negotiate for his country beyond accession to a wobbly enterprise is unclear). However, he made a poor impression on the MEPs who questioned him for three hours yesterday.

He pledged to focus on enforcing current legislation, seeking earlier and deeper involvement of stakeholders in the legislative process, and consolidating the legal framework of European consumer policy.

The centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in Parliament, labelled his answers “too vague”, demanding a follow up.

“Neven Mimica has proven to be a serious person but he must catch up with the [Parliament’s] claim for the enforcement of concrete EU laws. Before being confirmed as a European Commissioner he must respond more concretely to MEPs’ questions,” said German MEP Andreas Schwab, EPP member of the Parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee.

Mr Mimica, on the other hand, thought it all went rather well.

East Europeans are just so thrilled at being in the EU

Or not. It has been one of the persistent arguments for the European project since the fall of the Soviet Union that East Europeans were lining up to join it and were overjoyed when they could do so. This might apply to their political elite (in fact, it does apply to their political elite) and to their own forms of eurotrash, many of whom were Communist apparatchiks, youth leaders and others of that ilk.

The truth is that the EU made sure that those East European countries had no real choice; huge amount of money was spent in propaganda and the EU was helped by the fact that almost all the opponents of EU membership were either unreconstructed Communists or unpleasant nationalists. Nevertheless, when referendums came around on the membership, turn-outs tended to be extremely low.

Croatia, the next one to join, is no exception. Last January it had a referendum at which those who advocated membership secured an easy victory, not least because only 43.5 per cent bothered to turn out to vote.

Yesterday, the Croatian electorate excelled itself. The first election for members of the Toy Parliament were held and only 21 per cent bothered to turn out. Mind you, that is not quite as low as Slovakia's in the 2009 election when it was under 20 per cent or in the 2004 election when less than 17 per cent chose to participate. But it is not exactly a ringing endorsement or a sign of spectacular excitement at the thought of participating in this charade great political project.

Croatia's opposition centre-right HDZ party won six seats, narrowly beating the ruling centre-left SDP faction with five deputies. The nationalist and left-wing Labour party got one MEP.

The winners will act as observers with no voting rights in the EU assembly until Croatia joins the Union on 1 July.

They will then serve for one year, before Croatia chooses a new set of euro-deputies in the general EU elections next May.

I wonder what the turn-out will be then.

What's so difficult ....

.... about understanding that the European Parliament, regardless of its phony name are NOT the European Union lawmakers? The Wall Street Journal has a large staff and many researchers, yet they seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

"Small earthquake"

Curiously enough, Nigel Farage, the Great Helmsman of UKIP, seems to be more rational about his party's achievement yesterday than many of the members and even the media whose endless repetition of the words UKIP and surge hide the fact that actually it did not go very far.

Mr Farage, on the other hand, is uncharacteristically modest in today's Evening Standard. Having in the past predicted repeatedly an earthquake in British politics caused by his party and throngs of Conservative MPs joining his party, on the day after UKIP had achieved its best result in a by-election, their Leader merely predicted an earthquake in next year's European elections.

By this, I assume he means that UKIP will come first among the parties. That is not unlikely as they came second last time.

All the same, a sitting MEP of some experience ought to know that even if UKIP wins every single British seat in the European Parliament (an inherently unlikely scenario) it will not make a scrap of difference to anything that happens in that body or in the European Union as a whole. He has said this frequently himself in that speech he has given up and down the country.

What was that headline Claud Cockburn invented: "Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead."

Physician heal thyself?

This is actually quite funny and both stories come from the ultra europhiliac (unashamedly so, unlike some other organizations I can think of) EU Business.

As people who have been following news from the EU know, the rather ridiculous plan to make a forty per cent quota for women on boards of listed companies mandatory has been shelved for the time being. (I shall be watching comments on this posting carefully and there may well be some banishments for utter stupidity. You have been warned.)

However, the amusing part of it is that the ECB has been hoist by the same petard.

European lawmakers snubbed the EU's leaders on Thursday when they voted down the leading candidate for a key European Central Bank post to protest a lack of women candidates for the job. Recognised on all sides as well qualified, Luxembourg Central Bank head Yves Mersch lost out after a series of sharp exchanges over the representation of women at the top level of European political and business institutions.

Forty per cent. gentlemen?

A small step in the right direction

August 23, the anniversary of the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which divided Eastern Europe into the two spheres of influence and agreed the double invasion of Poland, has been designated by the European Parliament as one on which the EU and its member states "formally remember the victims of mass deportations and exterminations".

Admittedly, "deportations and exterminations" is an odd way of putting it but, presumably, they needed a short and all-encompassing phrase.

This action on the part of the European Parliament, made entirely under pressure from the East European members in 2008, is a small step in the right direction.

There are a couple of problems with it: one is that nobody really knows about this day, which, like so many big historic events, occurs when most people are on holiday. Nor is it officially announced so it is not entirely correct to say that European Union member states are marking the day.

An even bigger problem, is that Nazism is equated with Stalinism, rather than Communism as a whole. That ignores the crimes committed under Lenin, after Stalin's death, in other Communist countries and, most importantly, lets the existing Communist parties off the hook who never have to justify their continuing support for a murderous system. After all, they can say, Stalinism is a thing of the past just as Nazism is, except that, according to the EU propaganda machine and various left-wing sock puppets we need to be constantly vigilant against neo-Nazism but not against neo-Stalinism or real-time Communism.

Not sure what to make of this

My attention has been drawn to a curious item of news. Apparently, the first ever (well, it would be, wouldn't it) European Jewish Parliament was inaugurated in Brussels in February.

The inaugural meeting of the 120 elected members of the first ever European Jewish Parliament (EJP), described as a new and innovative forum to voice the thoughts, beliefs and ideas as well as concerns of European Jews, took place on Thursday at the European Parliament building in Brussels.

The Parliament members, who represent 47 countries, have been elected by more than 400,000 people from East, Central and Western Europe who voted online and showed an unprecedented interest and demand across the continent for a new, fresh, up-to-date, transparent and democratically elected organization in Europe, says the European Jewish Union (EJU), the organization which initiated the creation of this parliament.

Among the elected MEJPs are several well-known leading figures of European Jewry such as Pierre Besnainou from France, Cefi Jozef Camhi from Turkey, Nathan Gelbart from Germany, Oliver Mischon from the UK, Joel Rubinfeld from Belgium, as well as an important number of young emerging personalities and leaders.

"New, fresh, up-to-date, transparent and democratically elected" - what on earth has that to do with the European Union? Or hasn't it anything to do with it? On the whole, I do not care how many different European Parliaments there are though, naturally, I can quite see the argument that if there is a Jewish one, then why not a Catholic one or a Muslim one.

If this were in a real country with real democratic and constitutional structures that were accountable or were, at least, supposed to be accountable to the people of that country, I would be very much against it. But as this is a pan-European organization, vaguely connected with the European Union, then I can see the benefit. The more parallel institutions there are, the less the whole project is likely to coalesce.

Jack Straw does not go far enough

A little late in the day but some Labour politicians have been making noises about the democratic deficit at the heart of the European project. Jack Straw, speaking at Labour's favourite think-tank, the IPPR, said that had the peoples of Europe been consulted about the euro, many of the stresses could have been foreseen.

Actually, had the peoples been consulted, there would have been no eurozone. Greece might have voted for it but not Germany or such countries as the Netherlands.

Furthermore, added Mr Straw, former Foreign Secretary, the European Parliament needs to be overhauled and the farce of direct elections abolished. Of course, that does not go far enough, in my opinion. The European Parliament needs to be closed down for good. Enough of this expensive toy parliament whose dual role is to provide some kind of a democratic mask to the whole project and to tighten up the Commission's proposed regulations.

The European Parliament was not always directly elected. It started off as a Parliamentary Assembly and its members were chosen by the member states' parliaments, that is elected indirectly. This did not change till 1979 and I recall Lord Stoddart of Swindon telling me that he had opposed that change, not wishing to give the European Parliament or any European institution the semblance of a democratic institution. He and his cohorts were absolutely right.

Since 1979 the European Parliament has acquired more power with every new treaty, though the Commission remains the sole proposer of legislation in the EU (that includes every form of it, directives, regulations and all others) and the Parliament is neither a debating chamber or a legislating body in the way we understand it. It does tend to be more extreme in its demands for regulation of whatever is on the table than the Commission or the Council. Some dim understanding of this has filtered through to the various countries' electorates and with every new acquisition of power the European Parliament has lost voters. The turn-outs have been sinking over the years.

Here is a somewhat misleading account of what the European Parliament can and cannot do.

It is idiotic even to suppose that one can have European democracy or accountability when there is no European demos, no European understanding even of what such a beast might look like. And let us not forget that candidates are chosen by the various parties in closed lists. Time to stop pretending that the European Parliament is in any way a parliament. We can go back to the old system of deputies being chosen by the various legislative bodies across the EU. Or we could just simply scrap it as a first step towards scrapping the whole project. This one will be easy as the Toy Parliament's disappearance will affect no-one except its members and employees.

Look, it really doesn't matter how many reports you produce

Thanks to my daily e-mail from Open Europe I find that there is another time-wasting very important report in existence that proves at great length that it is a waste of time, money, energy and good will on everybody's part for the European Parliament to have sessions in Strasbourg as well as Brussels.

There are two main problems with all these reports. No, make that three because the first and most obvious one is that it is a waste of everybody's time, money and energy to keep producing reports of no significance whatsoever simply to justify an MEP's, his staff's and the Brusssels-Strasbourg Study Group's existences and the funds allocated to them.

Secondly, to argue that there is something wrong with the European Parliament having two seats is to suggest that if that noxious organization did not ever leave Brussels it would be something to love and admire. Wrong, ladies and gentlemen, especially of Open Europe and other organizations who periodically campaign for getting rid of the Strasbourg sessions: the European Parliament has no justification whatsoever, regardless of how many seats it has. Even one seat and set of luxurious offices is too many.

Thirdly, all these campaigns tend to forget that the Strasbourg session and all that it implies are written into the treaties. The provision, always in existence in practice, made its way into theory in the Treaty of Amsterdam as it had been agreed at the European Council at Edinburgh in 1992. Here is what Protocol 8 says

(a) The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.

See? Nor has that Protocol been deleted from subsequent treaties. It is still there in the Treaty of Lisbon and the Consolidated Treaties, to all intents and purposes the real and present constitution of this country and of all EU member states. Protocol 6 on page 265 repeats the text above. So, the geographically dual parliamentary procedure is part of the treaty and can be changed only through a change of the Consolidated Treaties, which would require unanimity. What are the chances of France agreeing? I think it might be easier to shut down the European Parliament altogether.

ADDENDUM: Edward McMillan-Scott thinks the monthly sojourn in Strasbourg induces stress-related problems in MEPs and the Parliament's staff. Well, diddums!

They keep telling us

While the House of Commons struggles with the irrelevant European Union Bill (first day of Committee was on Tuesday and nothing much was achieved, as predicted, the colleagues out there are making the usual threats and statements.

Benedict Brogan tells us that the Anglophile French Prime Minister François Fillon, has promised that France and Germany would do "anything" to save the euro. Well, there's a surprise that most of us did not foresee. Of course, the people and courts of Germany might think otherwise but the notion that the French and the German governmentswould do anything has been obvious for some time. Furthermore, M Fillon added in an interview with the newspaper no-one can read on line any more:

“In order to consolidate the euro we will need gradually to harmonise our economic, fiscal and social policies, hence we are going to go towards greater integration. We are going to need to put in place an economic system of governance for the eurozone. Great Britain is not part of the eurozone; at the same time the decision we will take will have great importance to Britain,” he says.

“The question is is the UK ready to accept or encourage greater integration of the eurozone or is the UK distrustful of that and will it create obstacles and make it more difficult to happen? I do believe the first solution would be much better. We in the eurozone have no other choice right now than further integration. Essentially the question is whether the UK wants to exert an influence on this changing Europe or not.”

So, in order to avoid the catastrophe of the euro's failure (and let's face it, the consequences will not be pleasant for anybody but the long-term future would be better) Britain must get more involved in creating an integrated economic governance.

No surprises there. Nor will there be any in the pusillanimous behaviour we can expect from the Boy-Ming and his side-kick, the Chancellor.

Meanwhile Joschka Fischer, the former German Foreign Minister has gone even further (not being the FM means that he can talk a little more openly):

At a large gathering on Wednesday evening (12 January) in the European Parliament, members of the Spinelli Group, a new network of prominent euro-federalists, called for an acceleration of European integration, arguing that a greater economic and political intertwining was urgently needed to solve the bloc's panoply of problems.

"To say that Europe is in a bad way would be euphemistic," the co-president of parliament's Green group and Spinelli member, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, said by way of introduction.

Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was equally pessimistic about the current state of affairs at the meeting, entitled 'A United States of Europe'. He acknowledged that "the EU's 'no-bailout' clause was quickly forgotten" in the face of Greek difficulties last year, and that "eurobonds are there, just in a different shape," but was critical of France and Germany's reluctance to move forward with further integration.

"Despite all the kisses [between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel], France and Germany are going through a difficult period," he said.

The idea that further integration will somehow create a strong, stable entity with a great deal of influence on the world is, of course, laughable but the amount of damage that will be done and is being done in the process is not.

This must be a bitter pill

As the Boy-King, his best friend, little Georgie-Porgie and their other little friends are slapping each other on the back and rolling around with excitement at the thought of all those cuts in welfare spending and one or two other things (though one suspects the final tally will not be all that impressive) news comes that the European Parliament has voted to increase the 2011 EU budget by 5.9 per cent.

If the EU budget was frozen at 2010 levels (€123bn or £108.2bn) the UK contribution would have been £14.82bn. But under the European Parliament’s increased budget (€130bn or £114.4bn) the UK will contribute £15.67bn. This represents an increase £843m to the UK’s gross contribution.

We knew it, did we not? Cameron just had to turn round and wag his finger at them and all will be well.

On top of that, Britain has been defeated on extension of maternity leave: The European Parliament has today voted to extend the European Commission’s proposals on maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay. An internal European Parliament impact assessment estimates that the cost of the changes to the UK will be €3 billion (£2.5 billion) per annum. This figure has been confirmed by the UK Government.

Clearly we are winning in Europe. Not!