Oh dear, oh dear, life is hard

One would not mind hearing civil service mandarins moaning about how dreadful everything in their world had become if one did not know that largely it was their fault; that we are all paying for this; and, in any case, they are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Sir Christopher Meyer, formerly Our Man in Washington and subsequently Chairman of the somewhat pointless Press Complaints Commission, is doing a bit of complaining himself in the Daily Telegraph.

It seems that the “lights are going out in the Foreign Office” and the great British diplomatic service, traditionally held in the highest esteem by all foreigners is no longer so. In fact, the reputation is under threat.

He then goes on to produce a great deal of misplaced nostalgia (British diplomats have never been known for their extensive knowledge of languages, for instance) and complaints about all the things that are going wrong.

There are several things he does not mention. Apparently, it has escaped Sir Christopher’s attention that the Rolls Royce that is our foreign and diplomatic service has been unable or unwilling to negotiate with any kind of credibility within the European Union and its predecessors. Not to put too fine a point on it, those Europeans who are so full of admiration for British diplomats have run rings round them.

There is, as a number of comments have pointed out, no real need for the FCO any more as the EU Foreign Service, in existence for about twenty years, will, post-Lisbon, become the main diplomatic service for all the member states. Britain, thanks in great measure to our brilliant diplomats, is not a sovereign country and, therefore, has no need for diplomats, ambassadors, attaches or any of that paraphernalia.

The only thing we do need to deal with is expats in trouble, the very task Sir Christopher finds demeaning.

As to the politicization of the diplomatic corps, Sir Christopher Meyer was one of those who pushed the process along, as I wrote as long ago as 2005 on EUReferendum.

If we must have ambassadors, a questionable proposition in this day of easy communication, they should not, in my opinion, be self-publicizing glamour boys or girls. The Meyers seemed the epitome of Blairite politics and diplomacy. So, I was not unduly surprised when Sir Christopher proceeded to stab the Prime Minister and the entire government severally and together in the back by publishing a somewhat self-serving (his brilliance as described by himself in his book appears to be undeniable) memoir of his days in the American capital.

Well, now, before we start to laugh too heartily at another problem Tony Blair seems to have encountered, let us have a look at the truth of the matter.

Sir Christopher Meyer is a civil servant, a diplomat. One assumes he signed something called the Official Secrets’ Act at some point in his career but that does not seem to inhibit anyone any more. As ambassador he was in a position of trust and confidentiality. Above all, he is not supposed to engage in open party politicking. Two years after his ambassadorship he is not exactly expected to diss his employer, the British government.

It’s a bit much to have this self-publicist weeping crocodile tears about the … sob … disintegration of the great British diplomatic service.

Nothing in history is for ever

Or in other words, hysterical weeping and gnashing of teeth is of very little use to those of us who would like to reverse the situation or move to another level of historical development. Nothing is for ever; nothing is over not to be retrieved.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Berlin Wall. Here is the beginning:

And here are two pictures from the end, twenty years ago, today. Think about it and start drawing some conclusions.

"But what good came of it at last?"

As every schoolchild ought to know but probably does not, that is a line from Robert Southey's The Battle of Blenheim. These are the closing lines of the poem:

"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why, that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."

We are all supposed to be celebrating a great victory in the battle over the MPs' expenses and the Taxpayers' Alliance is, indeed, doing so. The establishment of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and their participating in it (as listed a little way down here) is considered to be a great success in the fight against dishonesty and power-grabbing.

Indeed, they proudly announce that many of their suggestions have been adopted, which is why, one assumes that they are the only right-wing organization (or so they say) to have been asked to participate in the implementation panel of this latest of quangos.

So it is this really such a famous victory? I beg leave to doubt. The TPA has been conducting a robust campaign against quangos, unaccountable organizations, high salaries in the public sector. Well, what is the IPSA but an unaccountable organization that seems to have an open-ended view of how much it will cost.

In this list of Frequently Asked Questions on the official IPSA website, we read the following proud announcement:

How independent is the IPSA?

The IPSA is an independent body. The Chair, Members and Commissioner for Parliamentary Investigations of the IPSA are appointed through an independent, rigorous, fair and open competition.

Sounds wonderful until we realize what that means. It is independent from any accountable body - i.e. it is completely unaccountable.

How will those appointments be made?

The posts of Chair and Members of IPSA were openly advertised in September, and candidates are being considered through an independent and open competition, run by a panel chaired by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. MPs have had and will have no involvement in that part of the process.

All those considered to be appointable are put forward to the Speaker who then decides who to appoint. The Speaker’s preferred candidates for each post is then put forward to the Speaker’s Committee, and the Committee is asked to agree them. At the conclusion of this process, the House of Commons will be asked to approve IPSA’s membership, including the chair. They will not be able to cherry-pick from a list of candidates. This is the same process as has been followed for appointments to other roles where independence is paramount – for instance that of the membership of the Electoral Commission.

I call that only relatively open as the appointment is made somewhat opaquely. But the biggest problem here that this appointed and unaccountable body will be running various aspects of the House of Commons, the elected body. What we are seeing is the last vestiges of any power being taken away from that body and being given to a quango. From now on, MPs will not be able to run their own financial affairs any more than they can legislate on most matters. Is this really a famous victory? Why does the TPA think so? Why is it involved in this organization?

Then there is the question of payment, left open for the time being. From those FAQs:

How much will IPSA cost?

The IPSA is under a statutory duty to aim to do things efficiently and cost-effectively. Implementation of IPSA is still at an early stage, with various options being developed. It is too early to say how much IPSA will cost to run as this will depend on decisions which have not been taken. The main cost of IPSA will be the allowances scheme itself and the salaries of MPs.

Yes, well, they all talk about that statutory obligation and not running an expensive operation but somehow the costs mount up. Let us have a look how we are doing so far:

What will the Chair earn? And what will be the arrangements for his or her expenses?

Details of remuneration were made public in the advertisements for the post - £700 per day plus reasonable expenses incurred. It is expected the Chair will work 3 days a week initially, reducing to 1 day a week, and capped at £100,000 for the first year.

That's just the start. We go on to some other insignificant expenses:

When will the IPSA Chair and members be appointed?

The Speaker’s Committee for the IPSA has ratified the Speaker’s nomination of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy (PDF 11Kb) to be the Chair of IPSA. We expect that an announcement on the Members will follow shortly afterwards.

What is the role of the Interim Chief Executive?

The interim Chief Executive will take forward the IPSA implementation programme, working with the Chair and Members on appointment. The ICE will be the accounting officer for the IPSA implementation programme and for the IPSA until a permanent Chief Executive is appointed.

Who is the interim Chief Executive?

Andrew McDonald took up post on 14 September 2009. Andrew McDonald was previously the chief executive of Government Skills, the Sector Skills Council for central government and the Armed Forces. He has been a civil servant for the past twenty years and has undertaken a range of policy and operational roles including the delivery of a construction project, leading a new agency at its start-up and running the constitutional reform programme.

How much does the Interim Chief Executive earn?

The post of Interim Chief Executive is paid in the range £105,000 – £115,000 per annum. This was benchmarked against similar public sector roles and the salary compares favourably.

The post of permanent Chief Executive can only be appointed after the appointment of the IPSA, and will be subject to fair and open competition.

You will be glad to know that they will be publishing their expenses "on a rolling basis".

Somehow, it seems entirely appropriate that the new Chairman of this new quango should be a friend of Alistair Campbell's.

Back in action

I spent the last two days closeted with spooks and ex-spooks at a conference that celebrated either the 100th or the 424th anniversary of this country's security services. A lot of fun was had by one and all but, alas, my attempts to get recruited failed. So, I shall be back in action as blogger and editor of Conservative History Journal this week-end.

Stuck on stupid No. 2

Some time ago we noted on this blog and on EUReferendum [link in the posting] that the Conservatives were retreating from a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and chattering happily or not so happily about a "wider referendum" on repatriation of powers. Why, in the light of that, anybody was surprised by yesterday's developments is not clear to me.

The chatter is going on. I wrote about Open Europe yesterday. Today it is the turn of David Davis, the great hope, never realized, of the party's more libertarian right wing. His "eurosceptic" credentials are not in a particularly good nick, as he was a fairly tough Whip at the time John Major was pushing the Maastricht through against a good deal of Conservative opposition. (No, oddly enough, there was no referendum then, either, despite it being an enormously important document, constitutionally speaking.)

Subsequently he was Minister of State at the FCO with responsibilities for Europe. What we call demotically, Europe Minister. No worse than others, but certainly no better. Come to think of it, he must have taken a very big part in the negotiations that produced the Amsterdam Treaty.

The Guardian has a piece about him getting all stroppy again. It seems that the entire gifted political staff of that newspaper is incapable of grasping that we do not have a relationship with the EU. We are part of it. If we come out of it and it remains extant, we shall have a relationship.

David Davis's actual challenge is in the Daily Mail and it seems to me to be as much of a damp sqib as his infamous resignation and by-election turned out to be.

What we should do is, in my view, clear. We should have a referendum, not on the treaty, but on the negotiating mandate that the British Government takes
to the European Union.

This has many virtues. It allows the British people to express their view on the future of their nation. Most of all, it gives the Government a formidable negotiating weapon.

He then chatters on a bit about how much the EU hates referendums (unlike the Conservative Party, we assume) and comes to what might be called the substance:

The question should contain four or five specific strategic aims which clearly summarise our objectives.

The sort of things we might include are: recovering control over our criminal justice, asylum and immigration policies; a robust opt-out of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; serious exemptions to the seemingly endless flood of European regulations which cost the UK economy billions of pounds each year; a recovery of our rights to negotiate on trade; exemption from European interference into trade in services and foreign direct investment rules; and an exemption from any restrictions on our foreign policy.

There's a nice broad selection of subjects to ask people about, all in different sections of the treaty and regulated by different constitutional (may as well use that word as it is accurate enough) rules. You can have a referendum on any or all of them to your heart's content. The question of how and with whom those negotiations should be conducted remains open. And yet Mr Davis, former Europe Minister ought to know the reality of those negotiations. Or did he simply lounge his way through his years at the FCO?

Just to be on the safe side, he does inform us all that it is not an in/out referendum and nobody should even think of that. Especially not the colleagues who must be laughing their heads off.

Nor is he suggesting that we should get rid of the supremacy of European law. Stuck on stupid, again.

This is no time to imitate Obama's supporters

David Cameron's supporters seem determined to become the sort of angry joke Obama's supporters are. They cannot cry racism every time somebody attacks the Boy's politics but there is plenty of shrill complaining. Accusations of mud-slinging, extremism, the usual europhobia (whatever that might mean), unseemly gloating (on the part of UKIP) and party disloyalty (for unhappy Conservatives) are being slung right, left and centre, though mostly right.

I have news for these people. Politicians can and must be criticized and even attacked on political matters; prevarication needs to be shown up for what it is; and very many people feel that they have given the Conservatives their last chance on matters European. Stop screeching and start thinking. Why are you in this mess? How can you get out of it.?

Besides, this is no time to start imitating Obama or the Obamabots. The election results from across the Pond would indicate that the voters are not happy. Republicans have won gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, retaking the states by susbtantial margins. The President had campaigned personally in both states. But then, he also went to Copenhagen to campaign for Chicago in the Olympic bondoogle.

In NY-23 an unknown independent conservative not only managed to push the very left-wing official Republican candidate out, but also came within three points of winning the election. Despite the sudden flurry of support from the White House and the former Republican candidate (who showed her true colours and embarrassed the GOP leadership very quickly) the Democrat, Bill Owens, won on a thin majority. A majority is a majority, thin or not, but yesterday's elections are not happy ones for the Democrats or for the man who seems to have believed his own hype. Mind you, as Michelle Malkin points out, this is no time for the Republican establishment to gloat either.

Just to show how very gauche the White House is, in its political image-making, "White House officials insisted that Mr Obama would be watching a basketball game and would not pay any attention to the results coming in". Gubernatorial elections in the United States matter. To display such contempt (whether genuine or not) for the electoral process will annoy the people even more.

This is not a good time for the Toryboys of both sexes to imitate Obama's team. Contempt for the electorate followed by whining and spiteful attacks on all critics is a bad recipe for political success.

Stuck on stupid

As the news comes that President Vaclav Klaus has decided not to save the Conservative Party's bacon I find myself inundated with messages from various Conservatives about the pointlessness of having a referendum once the treaty has become law and not slamming stable doors (or, maybe, closing them after all) once the horse has bolted as well as the need to mover forward. Roughly what they say every time and they wonder why they cannot break the 17 point lead towards the third term of a deeply unpopular government.

The Boss has dealt with the issue of symbolism over on EUReferendum and has been following media reactions. Wouldn't catch me doing things like that.

There is also a great deal of hysteria around with people wailing like lost souls in the way they did when I first became involved in euroscepticism over the Maastricht Treaty. For everybody's information, nothing is ever over; this is not the end of the world; the EU is not the Soviet Union and even that was brought down by people refusing to support it any more.

Nor am I particularly impressed by people's snide comments about Klaus's lack of backbone, being a traitor and being paid off. This usually comes from people who have not done anything much in the fight. Let us not forget that President Klaus held out as long as he could. He found himself opposing both elected Houses of the Czech Parliament and by the Constitutional Court. No democratic president can persist in that sort of opposition.

Meanwhile President Obama welcomed the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty in fulsome terms. To be fair to the man (and you do not often hear me say this) he probably has not the faintest idea what he is talking about. The man who maintained that Austrians speak Austrian and his uncle liberated Auschwitz is unlikely to grasp that Europe is not actually a country and never has been.
Are we about to hear from the Conservative eurosceptics who supported him because he was not in favour of European integration? Step forward Daniel Hannan MEP, with whom I had a fierce argument on the eve of the American election last November. McCain has form, he insisted, whereas Obama would see that European integration was not in America's interests. We must support him. Obama, I retorted, will see what the State Department will show him.

The prize for stuck on stupid must go to that Conservative Party front organization, Open Europe. Their press release is so unbelievably silly and ignorant that it deserves quoting in full:

Open Europe calls on Conservatives to pledge a referendum on EU reform

Following President Klaus' signature of the Lisbon Treaty today, Open Europe calls on the British Conservative Party to now pledge to hold a referendum on reform of the European Union.

The potential election of a new Conservative government will coincide with the opening of EU budget negotiations, where discussions will be held about how much each country should pay into the EU over the period 2014 to 2020.

The UK has a veto over these negotiations, and should be prepared to use it to fight
for a package of reforms which must be fleshed out between now and the election.

This Reform Package should be put to the British people in a referendum, with a question along the lines of: "Are you in favour or against withholding agreement to the EU budget until the European Reform Package has been adopted?"

Tomorrow, Open Europe will publish the first in a series of papers looking at which policy areas the Conservatives should propose to tackle, and how. The first paper will look at EU social and employment policy, which currently accounts for a staggering 25 percent of the total cost of regulation in the UK.

Open Europe Director Lorraine Mullally said:

"Now that Lisbon is a done deal, the Conservative Party must pledge to hold a referendum on EU reform. They must not follow Labour and the Lib Dems and go back on their promise to give people a say on the future of the EU."

"The public are crying out to be consulted. The Conservatives should now announce a referendum on a package of meaningful EU reforms which they should draw up carefully over the next weeks and months. Linking their ideas for reform to the EU budget, a Conservative government could be in a strong position to work with key allies in Europe for a better, more democratic and modern European Union."

"A simple 'manifesto mandate' for these things will not be enough - people want
their long overdue say, and the Conservatives should give them it. A
strong mandate from the people will strengthen the Conservatives' position in
Europe when the time comes."

As fine a piece of muddle and prevarication as you would ever find in politics. Let me try to explain though I know that Open Europe is so sure of its position and righteousness that they tend to ignore any factual argument.

You see, we are not in a position to reform the EU. It can be done only by an IGC with a unanimous agreement to re-write the treaties. Do we really think that the other 26 members will simply agree to some ridiculous reform package that Open Europe and the Conservative Party work out between themselves? What happens if they don't? Go on vetoing the Budget? Where does that get us? We still need an IGC for that reform.

Get used to it. This will be the Conservative Party's line. But a few simple questions usually destroy their smugness. It's alwasy a pleasure to see Toryboys get really annoyed because they are in the wrong.

They should all have a look at Der Spiegel, which is gloating over the collapse of all opposition to the Treaty. In the interests of the narrative, though not the truth they tell us that "in the wake of the court's decision in Prague there has been a widespread relief across the Continent". Not precisely. There may have been widespread relief across the chancelleries of the Continent and I am not sure that even that is true. Some people at the top may have realized that there was a reason why this whole process has been so long and so painful and why none of them have dared to ask the people whether they agreed.

I look forward to hearing lamentations very soon about the gap between "Europe" and "the people", which surprisingly enough will have widened in the last eight years.