Renegotiations and the House of Lords

First things first: the EU Referendum Bill has gone through Committee, with the third day of it having taken place on November 4. First day of Report is scheduled for November 18 and several Amendments (mostly the ones that were not moved in Committee) have been put down already. So far, the only Amendments added to the Bill are ones moved by HMG in the person of Baroness Anelay of St John's, which raises the rather perplexing question of why have those Amendments been left to this late stage. Could it be that some of these matters did not occur to HMG until the Lords started going through the Bill with some attention to detail? Just a thought.

Yesterday was taken up with David Cameron's letter Donald Tusk, a.k.a. President of the European Council (only one of several Presidents the EU has, which shows how superior it is to the USA that has only one President). There were also statements in both Houses and the one in the Lords together with the short debate can be read here.

No, I don't know either why it is headed Europe: Renegotiation when the statement, quite correctly referred to "the Government's EU renegotiation". Baroness Morgan of Ely, former member of the Toy Parliament and present Opposition Whip and Labour Spokesperson on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as well as Wales (she can say a few words in the language) tends to talk about "Europe" rather than the EU. Then again, one of the interesting aspects of the debates on the subject (and there will be many more) is just how stupid the woman is. Having once debated with her in Cardiff, I knew that but it is good to have it confirmed. To be fair, even I underestimated her stupidity. Just read her reply to the Minister and you will see what I mean.

There are, as we know, problems with the PM's proposals, particularly this one:

We propose that people coming to Britain should live here and contribute for four years before qualifying for in-work benefits or social housing, and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The Government are open to different ways of dealing with these issues, but we need to secure arrangements that deliver on these commitments.

A number of people have commented on it, mostly pointing out that it will need a treaty change and a major one at that.

On the whole, we can ignore statements by Baroness Morgan for the Labour Party (who is still proposing to add 16 and 17 year olds to the voters' list but not, apparently, 14 and 15 year olds) and Baroness Smith of Newnham for the Lib-Dims, who are seriously over-represented in the House of Lords. Effectively they are saying that their parties will campaign for staying in, no matter what the outcome of the negotiations might be. That is not a rational attitude.

Let us turn to someone who can actually punch hard in debates, Lord Lawson of Blaby (Col. 1949):

My Lords, the Statement we have heard runs the full gamut from the inadequate through the vague to the completely meaningless. I ask my noble friend two quick questions of elucidation. Under economic governance, the Statement concludes that any issues that affect all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states. Does it mean that legislation in this area must be agreed by all member states? If not, what on earth does it mean?

Secondly, under sovereignty, the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk states that he would seek a formal, legally binding and irreversible way to exempt the United Kingdom from the commitment to ever-closer union. But since the rest of the European Union is committed to ever-closer union, and since the European Union will continue to legislate to this end, what on earth does that achieve?

Indeed, the ever-closer union is written into every treaty's preamble since the one of Rome all those decades ago.

The Minister's response was so disappointingly vague and woolly that I see not point in putting it up here but it is there in Hansard for all who want to read it.

The question of how many EU citizens claim benefits here and what those are, in-work or out of work remains unanswered despite attempts by Baroness Ludford to obfuscate an already foggy issue. Of course, the benefit system needs to be reformed for everybody but I doubt if the noble lady would agree with that, being of the Lib-Dim persuasion and another former member of the Toy Parliament.

Nor were as Lord Garel-Jones's incomprehensible comments about red card, yellow card and subsidiarity particularly impressive. The whole shebang is pointless, really. You can have any amount of coloured cards, they will not restore legislation to the national parliaments. But I do have to report one victory. After many years of campaigning by Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke (who had asked a Question about Basic Farm Payments earlier in the day) to make former European Commissioners declare their interests there seems to be some movement in the right direction. At any rate Lord Clinton-Davis said (Col. 1952):

I speak as a former commissioner in Europe. This debate is outrageous. We ought to be discussing not how we are going to withdraw from Europe but how we can play a part in ensuring that our voice is heard. At the moment, it is not, because the Prime Minister is being ambiguous—we do not know where he stands. He will not say whether he is for or against. What is vital is how we make our views heard, not how we can withdraw. We should not have this attenuated debate, but a real one about the all-important issues. At the moment, that is being denied to Parliament, and that is wrong.

Without making it a declaration of interest, which it is, he does point out that he is a former Commissioner in Europe though, of course, it was the European Union. I suspect the noble lord finding the debate outrageous is quite useful from our point of view.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised a couple of important points (Col. 1453):

My Lords, I ask the Minister how seriously the Prime Minister takes his belief, according to the Statement, that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster? Does the Minister think the Prime Minister understands that this requires the breaking of the acquis communautaire, the one-way ratchet to complete union? Surely that will require unanimity. It will require treaty change. I suppose the real question is that if the others do not agree this revolutionary concept in the project of European integration, does that mean that the Prime Minister will campaign to leave?

The Minister has promised to write to Lord Pearson on the subject and that is something to look forward to. Interestingly, the Statement left open the question of which side the PM is likely to campaign on. We all assume that he will proclaim whatever he gets a great victory and campaign to stay in but by suggesting that he might not do so he has presented himself as a man of political flexibility and also of real principle. (Stop laughing at the back.) With the Opposition shouting that they will campaign to stay in, no matter what, this is a useful image to project.

Just how much say do we have?

A move away from the common foreign policy to the common  agricultural one, known to us all as CAP. Do we want to be part of it as we undoubtedly have to be if we stay in the European Union? That one is a little hard to defend as it is so obvious that we have minimal say in the decisions made and no control over the regulations that are then imposed on our farmers but, I have no doubt, there will be those who will shriek with horror at the very suggestion that we no longer participate in this structure, despite the fact that they cannot name a single benefit or a single instance of British influence.

On February 26 the House of Lords had a short debate (what used to be known as an Unstarred Question but we have abandoned such traditional labels) on this very subject. Lord Willoughby de Broke asked HMG "what is their assessment of the effect of European Union regulation on British agriculture".

As there are several peers still in the House who know about agriculture and some who even understand the intricacies of the CAP the debate was quite interesting and I thoroughly recommend it to readers of this blog. But here are a few meaty quotes from Lord Willoughby's speech, to keep everyone going:

I declare my interest as a member of that disgruntled group of farmers. I farm in Warwickshire and I am disgruntled because during my time in the Lords I have served on the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who is in his place, and have spoken in many debates, including debates in 1991, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004 and 2008. I think that in nearly all those debates there were calls for reform of the common agricultural policy. I think that both Front Benches in this House have always agreed with the idea of reforming the common agricultural policy. However, what has happened after all those fine words? Where are we now? Has anything changed? Has the common agricultural policy become less bureaucratic, less centralised and less corrupt? No, it has not. Has it made farmers any more prosperous? No, it has not. Actually, things have got worse, as I will explain.

The beef and sheep sectors are suffering under overregulation, passports and identification schemes, many of which are unnecessary and certainly very burdensome and time-consuming for stock farmers. Arable farmers are regularly stripped of their ability to grow profitable, healthy and viable crops at a time when they are being enjoined to feed an ever increasing population, but the rules from Brussels make it more and more difficult to do that. I take the example of winter wheat. One of the big enemies of winter wheat is the black-grass weed. Over the last couple of years, the most effective black-grass herbicides have been gradually withdrawn against the advice of our own very independent and expert Advisory Committee on Pesticides and that of the previous government Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington. However, their advice does not really count. What counts is what goes on in Brussels. The ayatollahs in Brussels decide what we are going to do and we have almost no say there any more. The rules are decided by the agricultural bosses in Brussels in the Commission and are subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, where we are regularly outvoted.

As the Minister will remember, the humiliating position of having no say in what goes on in agriculture in this country was underlined last summer when the Commission, spurred on by demonstrators dressed up as bumble-bees, suspended the use of neonicotinoid seed dressings for oilseed rape and other brassicas. Yet again, our Advisory Committee on Pesticides was against this, as to their credit were the Government and the Minister. Yet again, we are being forced to enforce a policy with which we do not agree.

The rule of unintended consequences will now kick in. Large acreages of oilseed rape have been damaged. The percentages are arguable, but these acreages have certainly suffered. According to Home Grown Cereals Authority estimates, about 40,000 acres of oilseed rape last autumn had to be destroyed, abandoned or re-drilled. The consequence of that is that as oilseed rape is a major food for bees and pollinators, there will be less food for them: there will be less oilseed rape. Now that neonics are banned, farmers will use airborne sprays. They have to be put on at flowering time. This initiative by the Commission will definitely damage bees more than was the case when we had neonicotinoid seed dressings—but welcome to the EU, and have a nice day.

The point is one that we make over and over again but it has not sunk in yet even after all these decades: it really does not matter what farmers in this country might want (and having worked with them in a previous reincarnation I can certainly affirm that many of the demands are completely unreasonable and often made by one sector at the expense of another one) or what our own elected politicians might proclaim. There is no possibility of getting our way in the structure as it stands.

The rest of the debate and the Minister's reply is quite salutary. Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dormer, for the Liberal-Democrats, decided to use her speech for the purpose of attacking UKIP's agricultural policy, which, according to her, veered from the slightly batty to the blatantly obvious.

One effect of the tabling of this debate was to make me look at UKIP’s agricultural policies. I was most surprised to see that number one on its agricultural policy list is to impose stronger controls on bush meat. Controlling bush meat, with all its health implications, is clearly very important, but that is not really a British agricultural issue. It is not in competition with beef or lamb. To mix my metaphors, it is a total red herring. That is an issue for the Home Office and border controls. The second top policy of UKIP is to support the trial culling of badgers for the control of bovine TB if veterinary opinion substantiates it. That is not original. It is common to all sides of the House so there is nothing to disagree with there. The third is that UKIP supports the principle of science before emotion on any agricultural topic. Who does not?

Actually, as it became obvious, the EU does not necessarily, still preferring the precautionary policy, much touted by various NGOs who, as we know, are paid for by tax money.

Then there were several examples of CAP regulations that were actually not that bad or even quite good, which is not to be denied. Even a stopped clock, as we know, is right twice a day. The question is not that but exactly how much rubbish do we have to accept in order to have some reasonable decisions, which, presumably, could be made in this country.

Some hope has been expressed in the wake of statements made by Commissioner Hogan, by Lord Caithness among others:

There has been an encouraging start by Commissioner Hogan, however, who has said many of the right things. I hope that he is more in the MacSharry mould than his predecessor. In his keynote address to the NFU conference in Birmingham two days ago, Commissioner Hogan said that he had made simplification a top priority for his work programme in 2015. He went on to say that he had launched a comprehensive screening exercise of the entire CAP to identify which sections may need simplifying. He went on to say that more than 200 Commission regulations implemented the common market organisation will be reviewed and simplified. If 200 are being looked at, what is happening to the others? Why are they not being looked at? In what timescale will this happen? How will we hold the commissioner’s feet to the fire? He has said the right things; how will we make him perform?

The fact is that every incoming Commissioner makes simplification his (or her) priority and every new Commission and new Presidency intends to cut back red tape and deregulate, possibly even decentralize within limits allowed by the acquis communautaire, which means not at all. It is a little odd that people should still find statements and speeches of that kind hopeful.

However, the really interesting speech is the one by the Minister, Lord De Mauley. It is very rational and full of good intentions as well as of a list of British attempts to achieve something, change something or prevent something within the CAP. What it is a little short on is actual achievements. I am afraid, Lord Willoughby de Broke's point is proved by the Minister who may well agree but cannot openly say so.

Time to start worrying about the London - Brighton run

Rather than try to work out all the details, known and unknown, of the growing Petraeus scandal, this blog will turn to matters nearer home. (No, not the BBC's travails though I have no sympathy whatsoever with broadcasters who appear to have no understanding of the concept of law.)

Lord Willoughby de Broke put down the following Written Question in the House of Lords;

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the proposals by the European Commission to harmonise European Union roadworthiness regulations; and what effect these proposals will have on the ownership of classic and vintage cars in the United Kingdom.

Earl Attlee, replying on behalf of HMG, as ever produced a mealy-mouthed explanation (as if Ministers could ever do otherwise).

An initial assessment has been made on the proposal which suggests potential significant costs to the UK. At the recent Transport Council the Government intervened and expressed serious concerns about the proposal, which will remove the requirement to have an annual roadworthiness test for vehicles over 30 years old and of historic interest, while limiting allowable modifications. The Government will continue to challenge those provisions that imply unmerited costs.

What, may one ask, are unmerited costs and, more importantly, is the London - Brighton Veteran Car Run safe from the regulators who, undoubtedly, have our best interests at heart?

Last Monday in the House of Lords

Lord Liddle, who, according to Wikipedia is "s principally known for being Special Adviser on European matters to prime minister Tony Blair and President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso" asked a question that makes very little sense until one recalls the noble lord's previous occupation:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for making the case for the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.

Rum. I thought we have been members of the European Union ever since it existed and were, indeed, signatories to the Maastricht Treaty, which set it up. What can the noble lord mean? If one reads the rest of the exchange it becomes clear that other peers, including the Minister found it hard to understand what on earth Lord Liddle was talking about though, obviously, his purpose was to demand to know why the government why HMG "clear leadership that our membership of the EU is vital to our economy and essential to our place in the world?"

 Later on the Leader of the House repeated the Prime Minister's statement about the European Council and a singularly uninspired one it was, too. So much so, that the debate, usually quite exciting on these occasions, lacked the usual vim. What could one say about a Council, which seems to have come to the conclusion that there is much to be done and much will be done any minute now or, rather, in the near and not so near future but we are going to have a proper time table, any minute now.

Their biggest promised achievement is:

On trade, the Council agreed an ambitious agenda to create 2 million jobs across Europe. This includes completing free trade deals with Canada and Singapore in the coming months, and starting negotiations with the US next year on a comprehensive transatlantic trade and investment agreement. And we made some progress on the launch of negotiations with Japan 'in the coming months'. This deal alone could increase EU GDP by €42 billion.

2 million jobs, eh? Well, that should solve all our problems.

Lord Willoughby de Broke pointed to one interesting problem [scroll down to the end of the debate]:

My Lords, one of the Council conclusions on which I hope the noble Lord can enlighten the House is headed,

"Developing a tax policy for growth".

Is this a tax policy for having higher taxes or lower taxes? Secondly, the same paragraph of the conclusions refers to, "enhanced cooperation to be launched on a Financial Transactions Tax". Was that supported by the British Government?

Well, was it? Hard to tell from the answer:

My Lords, on the first point, we are not in favour of any new taxes emanating from the EU. Secondly, we have not supported a financial transactions tax. We know that certain elements within EU countries have got together and decided to impose a financial transactions tax. I believe that in the long term that will prove to be against their interests.

After all, HMG supports the idea of a banking union, cheerfully pointing out that it will not affect Britain. So, it is reasonable to suppose that they assume that a financial transaction tax will not do so either. And the Porcine Air Force is about to take off.

Reasonable question - vague answer

Yesterday in the House of Lords (haven't heard from them for a while) Lord Kennedy asked HMG a somewhat disingenuous question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the announcement of price rises by British Gas, what action they will take to protect consumers from rising energy costs.

He got a disingenuous answer that gave notice of some more government spending on various projects and advertising thereof.

My Lords, protecting consumers from rising energy costs is a priority for this Government. Programmes such as the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, Warm Front, Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation make or will make homes more energy efficient. The Warm Home discount provides £1.1 billion of support until 2015 and helps around 2 million low-income and vulnerable households. The Government have also instigated the Big Energy Saving Week, to be held the week of 22 October, when there will be up to 400 events across the country providing direct advice on reducing energy bills.

It was Lord Willoughby de Broke's question that interested me:

My Lords, would not the simple way to reduce consumers' electricity costs be to stop paying huge subsidies to wind farms? The cost of those subsidies falls directly on to the consumer, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned, those in fuel poverty.

The answer was suitably vague (suitably for HMG, that is):

My Lords, this country needs a mix of different energy sources. Wind happens to be one of them and is carbon free. However, we recognise that we need to look at all sources and the subsidies we are providing to them, and we have taken it upon ourselves to reduce wind subsidies by 10 per cent.

!0 per cent is better than nothing but 100 per cent would be even better.

Somehow I remain unconvinced

Lord Willoughby de Broke asked HMG

how many new non-departmental public bodies have been created since the last general election.

We usually refer to them as quangos and their bonfire has been promised for some time. Ever since the last election, as it happens, though it has been somewhat slow in coming. The subject was covered by this blog in various ways here, here, here, here, here and here. A shambolic state of affairs, with little understanding of why quangos exist and what they do.

HMG, of course, thinks otherwise, as this reply to Lord Willoughby demonstrates:

Since May 2010, so far 92 quangos have been directly abolished and another 103 merged together to leave 50. Our overall plans will get rid of a third of public bodies and will save the taxpayer £2.6 billion over the spending review period.

Since May 2010, the Government have established and classified nine new non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) which were not previously in existence in another form. Six of these are independent monitoring boards which must, by law, be set up each time a new prison or probation trust is established. Departments must submit a full business case for any NDPB which clearly demonstrates the need for its independence. Further information on the size and spend of the NDPB sector will be published in the autumn. Overall numbers of NDPBs are substantially down since the general election and continue to fall.

As ever, a good deal of the reply deals with what will happen rather than what has happened and it is not clear that merging quangos with, possibly, some of the work going back to the civil service will save any money. We shall have to wait for that autumn information though it might have been useful if HMG could see its way to providing some interim figures now.

It is also unclear whether the six new quangos or NDPBs announced in the Queen's Speech have been included in the rather vague calculations provided in this response.

Errm, no, we are not telling you

A Written Question from Lord Willoughby de Broke on minimum pricing of alcohol elicited an unhelpful answer. The Question was:

what assessment they have made of whether their proposal for minimum pricing on alcohol is compliant with European Union law.

The answer was:

The legal advice which the Government have received on this issue is subject to legal privilege. We do not, therefore, believe it appropriate to disclose this advice (or any summary of it).

The Government are currently in discussion with the EU Commission on this issue.

Or, in other words, it will be the Commission that will make the decision but we are going to say as little as possible about that. People might find out that we do not legislate in this country.

Useful arguments

What am I to say to people who tell me that we need to be in the EU for our economic welfare or, at least, in a greatly reformed EU? This question keeps coming up and it is important. We have not managed to get our message across as successfully as we ought to have done so arguments that we can use against the other side are important.

Here are some in a letter to the Grauniad, signed by many of the usual suspects (though they are not, thankfully, calling for that referendum).

1. We have 3m jobs exporting to the EU but it has 4.5m jobs exporting to us. We are its largest client. 2. The EU has free-trade agreements with 63 countries worldwide and another 63 on the way, so why not with us, on satisfactory terms? 3. Switzerland, not in the EU, exports three times more per capita to the EU than we do. 4. Only 9% of our GDP goes in trade with the EU (in deficit), 11% goes to the rest of the world (in surplus), and 80% stays in our domestic market. Yet Brussels overregulation strangles all 100% of our economy, and handicaps our exports to the countries of the future. Leaving the EU would create jobs, and restore our democracy.

While I have some reservations about the last sentence (leaving the EU will not automatically do either of those things), the four cardinal points made in the letter are not only true but are also useful arguments. Mind you, when one produces them, one still has to deal with the dubious facial expression and a muttered "yes, of course, but even so" from a lot of people.

Nothing has changed - Part 1

In the light of the stupendous and misguided hysteria about the Boy-King's "fantastic achievements" in the recent European Council, which just confirms my view that an IN/OUT referendum would be a disaster, I have decided to start a series of the various ways in which Britain's position has not changed one iota. For those who are thinking along the lines of the UK being like Switzerland, I can say one thing: there is a difference between being outside the EU and signing bilateral agreements and being inside it and having to obey all the laws that flood towards us and will continue to flood.

First up: levels of immigration. I rarely get involved in that debate as I think it is almost entirely misguided. The problems are to do with our welfare and education systems not with immigration. Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear what HMG has to say on the subject.

On December 7 Lord Roberts of Conwy asked: "what steps they are taking to reduce net immigration".

HMG's response was the usual waffle and not entirely unexpected:

My Lords, we are committed to reducing net migration to tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, by the end of this Parliament. We have already introduced an annual limit on the number of non-EU workers, overhauled the student visa route and increased enforcement activity. Our next steps are to break the link between temporary and permanent migration by restricting settlement rights and to reform family migration.

The relevant part of the discussion comes some way down when Lord Willoughby de Broke asks:

My Lords, if the aim is to reduce net immigration, will the noble Lord say whether he is going to repatriate the power over immigration from the EU? It would surely help to reduce net immigration if we controlled immigration from the EU.

The answer?

My Lords, there are no plans to do so.

Of course not. We cannot do anything about it as we have no right to change EU rules.

Was this not one of those matters on which repatriation of powers was discussed in the dim and distant past (last week or so)? Yes, but you see, you can only change structures and repatriate powers by having a new treaty and that is something the Boy-King will not have.

Who is right, HMG or the Commissioner?

There seems to be some problem about those powers to scrutinize member states' budgets that the Commission is claiming despite, as Lord Pearson of Rannoch pointed out yet again and to some murmured agreement in the House:

My Lords, is it not grotesque that an organisation that has not had its accounts signed off by its own internal auditors for 17 years-there being no external auditor-should be handed these powers, given that if it had been a private company in this country the directors would have been in prison every year for the past 17 years?

And yet there are noble peers like Lord Davies of Stamford who can come up with questions such as this:

My Lords, a few years ago was there not a proposal that the Commission be given a duty of auditing the national accounts of member states? That proposal was turned down at the time by the Council. Is it not the case that if it had not been turned down and had been accepted, we would have had an earlier insight into the problems of Greece, the Greeks would have been unable to falsify their accounts, and the grave problems we all now face might have been significantly reduced?

Is an organization who has not had its own accounts (or budget as it is grandly named) signed off by the Court of Auditors really a competent judge of what is and what is not adequate auditing?

All this was part of a short debate on Lord Willoughby de Broke's Starred Question last week:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the proposal by the European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs that the European Commission should have the power to scrutinise member states' budgets and impose such financial penalties as the Commission deems fit.

As ever Lord Sassoon waffled in response though appeared to agree with the idea that national budgets should be subject to discipline from the Commission whose own budget ... etc etc.

My Lords, the Government strongly support the recently agreed economic governance legislation to strengthen the stability and growth pact. This provides for stronger and more responsible economic governance across the European Union. Under the new legislation, a range of financial sanctions can be imposed by Council within the euro area where member states are deemed not to have taken adequate action. Sanctions are set out under Article 136, which applies to the euro area only.

Lord Willoughby then came back:

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, the statement by Commissioner Olli Rehn applies not just to the eurozone but to the whole of the EU, including this country. Therefore, will the Minister confirm that today's Autumn Statement by the Chancellor is nothing more than an aspiration-a wish list? Will he confirm to the House that this will have to be ticked off and agreed by the European Commission before it can take any effect?

The response was somewhat mystifying though the noble Minister did admit that Britain is not entirely free from the various eurozone-related rules:

My Lords, this country has always been party to the stability and growth pact, but as I am sure the noble Lord knows, under Protocol 15 the UK has an opt-out, which means that we have to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits but are not subject to any sanctions such as members of the euro area are. Furthermore, the UK secured particular treatment that ensures-has ensured and will ensure-that Parliament will always be allowed to scrutinise the UK's budget ahead of the European Commission.

It is, of course, reassuring to know that the House of Commons who had, in days gone by, fought for the right to control the finances of this country, will, for the time being, be allowed to scrutinise the UK's budget ahead of the European Commission. Allowed? By whom? As if I didn't know.

There is, however, a problem with the noble Minister's answer that he so blithely insisted on. Not so long ago, Commissioner Olli Rehn, he who is responsible for the EU's Economic and Financial Affairs, published an article in the Daily Telegraph, in which he reiterated his statement on the matter of the six new pieces of regulation that had been nodded through in order to "stabilize the eurozone" or some such strange notion. In this he made it clear that more than just the eurozone is intended.

When this legislation enters into force later this year, the EU will have in place a much stronger framework for preventing the economic mistakes that have cast a shadow over the recent past.

We will be able to scrutinise the Member States' public finances, in particular the level of debt, much more carefully and pre-emptively than ever before. This will include co-ordinated examination of economic policies and budgets in the first half of each year before their adoption by national parliaments in a process known as the European Semester. And budgets will have to be designed and presented according to a common framework, in line with best international standards, so that budget-making is more transparent both for citizens and policy-makers.

No mention of the UK's opt-out there or in this statement of November 8.

This is first and foremost about safeguarding financial stability in the euro area and in the EU by exerting preventive and effective surveillance, according to the rules we have democratically given ourselves.

Let me be very blunt on this: It's either the EU institutions, according to our own rules, procedures and democratic accountability, or the market forces that will do the job. For me, as a committed European and a committed democrat, the choices are clear.

So who is right? The Minister or the Commissioner?

Looking forward

The BBC put up the following about what is to happen in the House of Lords on Tuesday:

Over in the Lords (from 2.30pm), peers have their first day of detailed committee stage debate on the Protection of Freedoms Bill. But watch out, too, for a question to ministers from Ukip's Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the suggestion that the EU Commission should have the power to scrutinise the budgets of member states, and penalise them if they go astray.

Should be an interesting if brief debate.

Two questions, two answers

Lord Willoughby de Broke has asked HMG

what is their assessment of the draft proposal by the European Commission to "temporarily prohibit" credit rating agencies from publishing their analyses on a member state's solvency.

The answer was:

The House of Lords EU Economic and Financial Affairs and International Trade Sub-Committee's published a report in July entitled Sovereign Credit Ratings: Shooting the Messenger?. The report concluded that the proposal of credit ratings being suspended for countries receiving international financial assistance was inappropriate and impractical and implied censorship.

The Government agreed with the report's assessment. In particular, temporarily suspending ratings for certain sovereigns would only reduce information in financial markets, exacerbate uncertainty and possibly lead to further contagion. In the absence of such ratings, it is likely that unregulated shadow ratings of these countries would emerge in any case.

So there we are. That answer can be quoted next time the subject comes up.

Scrolling down one finds a question from a member of the Kinnock Enterprises Inc. no other but Glenys, Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead. She wanted to know:

what are the fundamental reforms of the European Union which they are determined to deliver.

This is an odd one to put down as a Written Question as it is so meaningless. You put it down as a Starred Question either because you want your own party's front bench to come up with an anodyne and reassuring answer or because you want to mess up the other side. But if you put it down in writing it looks terribly as if you wanted to know. Who can possibly want to know the answer to that meaningless question.

Nevertheless, HMG provided one:

The Government's immediate priority is for the eurozone to find a sustainable response to the current economic crisis, and to do so in a way that protects the rights of all 27 member states to take decisions over areas such as the single market. We shall also continue to press for tight limits on EU spending and action to promote growth and jobs, through free and open markets, and by cutting regulatory costs on European business. And the Government have committed to examining the balance of existing competences between member states and the European Union and, in particular, to work to limit the application of the working time directive in the United Kingdom.

A daring programme, wouldn't you agree.

Lord Willoughby de Broke in the Daily Express

A fine fighting piece from Lord Willoughby de Broke in the Daily Express. He and I have agreed to disagree on whether a referendum is a good thing at this stage and the piece does not mention that the Motion for the debate suggests a referendum of three parts, which makes it even less likely that those of us who want to leave that political construct would get much support.

However, he does have a point that, possibly, the debate on Monday [the Express sub-editors should have changed that in line with the new decision] will cover such important issues as to who actually legislates in this country and where most of our regulation comes from. Whether the MPs will actually speak about this or whether they will drone on about the need to consult the people, nobody has been asked for generations, blah-blah, remains to be seen.

Nor will the referendum be exactly now with legislation being introduced, if the Motion is passed, in the next Session, which will not open till the spring.

I did, however, like these paragraphs:

My own family has had the honour of sitting in Parliament on and off since 1290. In all that time, despite wars, famines and pestilence, this country has never been led by politicians who felt we would be better governed from abroad.

Our political class forgets that it does not have the right to throw away our liberties. They are freedoms that the peoples of these islands fought for over centuries. They are our forefathers’ gifts for us to enjoy and build upon so that we have something to give to our own children and grandchildren.

They are in many ways simple things. The right to vote for and remove your government. The expectation that you will be protected from arrest and deportation to foreign lands without evidence. The right to think that your taxes are spent here in Britain for the benefit of your people, rather than have them thrown away to prop up the failing euro experiment.

Every word of that is true. It's just that many of us think that this Motion is designed to prevent those developments to take place.

Good letters in the Telegraph

It is a pity that the Telegraph, true to its mission statement of supporting the Conservatives whoever they might be, gives first slot among the letters to Bill Cash's ramblings. Not that he is entirely wrong - of course this country needs economic growth and, of course, it is difficult, not to say impossible with all those regulations pouring out of Brussels (and Whitehall, let us not forget). But, but, but ....

We cannot renegotiate a different relationship with the EU as we do not exactly have a relationship with it. Mr Cash knows that but he cannot go against party policy and call for a complete renegotiation of all matters, that is called withdrawal.

It is not the Lib-Dims who are the obstruction but the leadership of Mr Cash's own party but, clearly, he cannot actually say that. I shall pass over his well-known obsession with Germany, rooted in the fact that his father was killed during the Normandy invasion.

The second letter, on the other hand, from Lord Willoughby de Broke [you have to scroll down] makes an excellent point and does so very briefly. It ought to have been top of the list. Just exactly, why did George Trefgarne "forget" to mention the ring-fenced though ever-growing sums we hand over to the EU every year?