Thursday, September 26, 2013

"Our Campaign and our Country owe him a debt of gratitude."

Tuesday morning I went to Professor Kenneth Minogue's memorial at the very fine St Bride's Church behind Fleet Street. It was a splendid occasion with good many representatives of the British, American and Australian right, two fine addresses and several equally fine readings together with three of my favourite hymns: John Bunyan's To be a Pilgrim, Jerusalem and the great Battle Hymn of the Republic, which I last sang at the memorial to Baroness Park. It is always a pleasure to leave a memorial service not only full of thoughts about the subject of it but also full of fighting spirit. There could have been no other way of remembering Ken Minogue.

On Monday, however, I heard the sad news of another death of a man who was not as well known as Ken Minogue but who, in his own way, did a great deal for the cause of euroscepticism. When and, I am afraid, if British independence will be regained Sir Robin Williams (1928 - 2013), quondam chairman of the Anti-Common Market League and for many years, through good ones and bad, the Honorary Secretary of the Campaign for an Independent Britain will be remembered as one of the heroes of the fight. (Given that Sir Robin Williams was the Hon. Sec. of that organization from 1969 to 2008, I should have expected the CIB to have something about him on the website but I cannot find anything.)

The first time I met Sir Robin was in 1992 at the first CIB meeting I attended. I went as a guest from the Anti-Federalist League to tell them, just as I had told the Freedom Association that morning that we had published the Maastricht Treaty, which the government was holding back for reasons that it never managed to explain adequately. It was an illuminating day and I met a number of people whom I was to know well in the succeeding years. One of them was a slim gentleman of slightly military bearing who tended to bark questions and instructions. He was, as I learned then, the Secretary of the CIB and a man who tended to know all the members and what they were up to.

As I became more involved in the eurosceptic movement I started meeting Sir Robin and Wendy, his wife who would grin cheerfully at people her husband was haranguing, at various events and he began to ask me when I was going to join the CIB. Eventually, realizing that I had a rooted objection to joining any organization, he solved the problem by asking my daughter and me to lunch at their Highgate home. After the lunch we went for a walk and on returning he called me into his den, where the CIB's business was transacted and where its telephone stood, put an application form in front of me and stood over me while I filled it in and signed it. I tell the story with amusement to demonstrate Robin's determination to win as many members to his organization as he could, especially those who might then be put to work.

For to work I was put and became the CIB's press officer for some years. That was the heyday of many eurosceptic organizations, who suddenly found that their cause, which had languished for years, became once again important and well-known during and after the Maastricht debates.

Though I have seen them rarely in the last few years, I became friends with both Robin and Wendy, who gave talks at the Victoria and Albert Museum to which I went several times and from which I carried away a good deal of interesting knowledge that I can still recall after some years. No lecturer could ask for more.

It could be said that Sir Robin Williams sacrificed what must have been a promising political career to his beliefs and his opposition to Britain's entry into the Common Market. His father, the first Baronet, was a Conservative MP with an unusual background for that party. Sir Herbert Williams of Cilgeraint  (1884 - 1954) received a degree in Science and Engineering at the University of Liverpool and in 1911 became secretary and manager of the Machine Tools Trade Association. He also served on Wimbledon Borough Council. From 1924 to 1929 he was Conservative MP for Reading and a member of the first Court of the University of Reading when it received its Royal Charter in 1926. This is not the career of a nostalgically minded Tory.

Sir Herbert became MP for Croydon South in a by-election in 1932 and remained that until the Labour landslide of 1945. Despite the fact that it was his close colleague, the Conservative MP for Croydon North who proposed the Beveridge Report in the House of Commons in 1944, Sir Herbert vehemently opposed it. I cannot help feeling that with that career, Robin's father would have been a supporter of Mrs Thatcher.

Interestingly, opposing government and party leadership policy did not, in those days, mean the end of your career. Sir Herbert may have lost his seat in 1945 but was re-elected in one of the reorganized Croydon seats in 1950, remaining there till his death in 1954, having been made a baronet (something his son was rightly proud of) in 1953.

There is also a curious irony to the story: Sir Herbert's daughter Rosemary married another Baronet, Sir Ian Mactaggart, a millionaire Glasgow property developer and well-known eurosceptic; their daughter and Robin Williams's niece is Fiona Mactaggart a Labour MP of extreme left-wing views and questionable veracity in statements.

Times have changed. Sir Robin Williams was set for a political career as well and as Chairman of the Bow Group in 1954 - 55 (Geoffrey Howe's predecessor) he would have become a Conservative MP at some point if it had not been for his unfortunate tendency to speak his mind, that being quite clearly a family trait. His vehement opposition to Britain's entry into the EEC meant that he had to abandon any ideas of standing for Parliament. Instead he continued at Lloyd's and devoted his political and organizational talents to the anti-EEC/EC/EU movement.

As mentioned above, he became Chairman of the Anti-Common Market League (now called Get Britain Out) when it was formed in 1969 and remained in that position till 1984. The League was a founding constituent member of the National Referendum Campaign, a cross-party organization formed to fight for a referendum and also against Britain's entry into the Common Market. Sir Robin also became the Secretary of the Campaign for an Independent Britain that grew out of that early movement and is a continuing umbrella organization for a number of eurosceptic groups of long standing. He remained that through lean years and fat ones, when the media ignored it and when it wanted to know all about it. One look at the constituent groups would indicate the difficulty any Secretary would have in keeping them all on board, all more or less at peace with each other and all supporting the umbrella organization. It is no wonder that Robin would occasionally lose his temper in committee meetings and AGMs though he usually recovered his equanimity fairly quickly.

Let me add that his support for my activities as Press Officer for the CIB and the Anti-Maastricht Alliance as well as the organizer of the Red Lion Talks (of which I really must write some time) was unstinted.

Age was beginning to tell on Robin in the last few years though he still turned up for many meetings of the Bruges Group and other events. He was there at the May AGM of the CIB but, not being a member any longer, I went to the afternoon conference, specifically to hear the Boss on the subject of Article 50 and its consequences. Robin had left. People who had been there for the AGM have told me that he was looking very frail. In a way, I am glad I did not see him though sorry that I missed that last possible occasion to exchange a few words.

As another labourer in the same vineyard wrote to me about Sir Robin Williams: Our Campaign and our Country owe him a debt of gratitude.

ADDENDUM: The Campaign for an Independent Britain have now put up an obituary, which gives a more detailed summary of his education and career.

Monday, September 23, 2013

Merkel wins again

Not that there were any serious doubts about that but it does not look like the CDU-CSU will achieve that coveted absolute majority that would have been the first time since 1957 when it did happen under Konrad Adenauer (who, incidentally, won four elections).

Results are a little strange or so it looks at the moment. The CDU-CSU seems to be on 42 per cent, the bloc's best result since German reunification, the SDP on 25.5 per cent and the rest are in a disarray:
There was bitter disappointment for Merkel's allies in the outgoing government, the market-friendly Free Democrats (FDP), who suffered a humiliating exit from the Bundestag, the first time they will be absent from the chamber in the post-war era.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD), a new eurosceptic party that had threatened to spoil Merkel's victory by breaking into parliament for the first time, appeared to have come up just short of the 5 percent threshold required to win seats.

The young movement's hostility to euro zone bailouts and call to cut weaker southern members loose from the currency area resonated with many crisis-weary voters and may act as a brake on Merkel's conduct of European policy.

The radical Left party was set to be the third biggest force with about 8.5 percent, just ahead of the environmentalist Greens, who shed votes to finish near 8 percent.
Final allocation of seats will not be known till tomorrow. The AfD have done very well but it is sad not to see them in the Bundestag.

As a number of media outlets point out (for instance Deutsche Welle) the CDU-CSU could try to govern alone and not in a coalition but their majority would be extremely narrow and legislation very difficult.

The next stage in Russian politics

While we await the final results in the German Federal election and watch with horror the developments in Nairobi (and remember what happened earlier in Peshawar) we can sigh wearily over Russian politics.

The September 8 local and regional elections in that country brought in several results that were not, perhaps, to President Putin's liking, which is probably why he decided to tangle with President Obama: a victory even though it was only notional was more certain.

Western media, understandably, concentrated on Moscow, the very low turn-out (which was true across the country) and the achievement of Alexey Navalny but a few people noticed that elsewhere there was a victory for the oppositionist Yevgeny Roizman in Yekaterinburg, where he is now mayor.

He seems to be making a nuisance of himself.
During the 10th annual Valdai Forum in Moscow on Monday, Yekaterinburg Mayor Yevgeny Roizman and Sverdlovsk Governor Yevgeny Kuyvashev discussed issues of decentralizing the Russian government.

Roizman and Kuyvashev met during a session on regional diversity as part of the Kremlin-sponsored Valdai Forum. Roizman, an outspoken critic of Putin and his regime, told Kuyvashev, a governor selected by Putin to oversee the Urals, during the opening remarks of the Valdai Forum that he wished to “reset” the hostile political situation in the Urals, The Moscow Times reports.
In Yaroslavl an even nastier thing happened to the President: one of the people he dislikes most (the list is not all that short, as it happens) Boris Nemtsov, was elected to the regional assembly at the head of his party, Republican Party of Russia – People's Freedom Party (Russian: Республиканская партия России — Партия народной свободы, Respublikanskaya partiya Rossii - Partiya narodnoy svobody), RPR-PARNAS (Russian: РПР-ПАРНАС.

This happened despite every precaution being taken as Vladimir Kara-Murza explains:
The recent legislative election in the Yaroslavl Region, where Nemtsov headed the list of the Republican Party of Russia–People’s Freedom Party, was organized in the customary manner, with censorship on local television (even paid ads were not accepted) during the campaign and numerous violations—including “carousel voting” and vote-buying—on the September 8th election day itself. But the plan did not fully work. Official figures across the region ranged from 17 percent for Nemtsov’s party and 24 percent for Putin’s United Russia in central Yaroslavl, where independent monitors were present at polling places, to an incredible 0.5 percent and 60 percent, respectively, in the Tutaev rural district, where no such monitoring was conducted. The overall result, however, put the People’s Freedom Party above the 5 percent threshold required for entering the regional Parliament.
Does Mr Nemtsov's electoral success really matter? Apparently yes.
One would think that, although irritating, the presence of Boris Nemtsov in one of Russia’s regional legislatures would not be considered too big of a problem for the Kremlin. But it appears the authorities think otherwise. Russia’s Investigative Committee, headed by close Putin confidant Alexander Bastrykin, initiated two criminal cases against the newly elected lawmaker. One is on the charge of “battery” under Article 116 of the Russian Penal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison; the other is on the charge of “public calls to extremist activity” under Article 280.2, which carries up to five years in prison. Both charges, if brought to conviction, would mean that Nemtsov’s Duma seat will be taken away. The second charge would additionally deprive him of the right to run in any future Russian elections, as “extremism” is considered a grave offence.
The Russian news agency RIANovosti reports only the second of the charges, the one about extremism and even they sound a little doubtful. Mr Kara-Murza explains:
The “battery” charge stems from an incident on September 5th, when a provocateur from the pro-Kremlin Stal (Steel) movement approached Nemtsov at a campaign rally and threw two raw eggs at him, which drew a response from the opposition leader. Puzzlingly, the “victim” only went to the hospital to complain of “injuries” after the election.

The “extremism” charge, meanwhile, was leveled at Nemtsov’s speech at the same September 5th campaign rally. The precise sentence that attracted the interest of prosecutors was: “the liberation of Russia from the crooks and thieves must start from Yaroslavl.” An official spokesman for the Investigative Committee accused Nemtsov of “making a public statement that contained calls for a forceful change of the foundations of the constitutional order and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.” “With this charge, they have admitted that it is crooks and thieves who are in power, and that opposing them constitutes extremist activity,” Nemtsov observed in response to the news.
One wonders whether the Investigative Committee has noticed that virtual admission. One also wonders whether there are charges being prepared against the Mayor of Yekaterinburg.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Bloomin' 'eck!

I was absolutely determined not to blog about any of the party conferences, they being of no importance whatsoever. Thus I ignored Nigel Farage's speech that managed to steer clear of important matters such as how we get out of the EU and came up with some ridiculous predictions. (Governments often lose in the euro elections and that does not constitute a political earthquake.Get real, Nigel.)

This, however, cannot be ignored. I went out for dinner (Brasserie Zédel, since you ask) and on returning find that the oafish Bloom has actually upset even his only remaining fan, the party's Dear Leader, Nigel Farage and has been suspended pending investigation. Can't imagine what there is to investigate but I suppose they have to go through the motions. I predict he will be back.

The Boss sums up trenchantly as ever.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

All this secession stuff creates problems

Catalonia is unhappy. Actually, they have never been all that happy about being part of Spain but in the last few years they have acquired certain rights, for example that of using their own language, which had been banned under Franco and for some years afterwards. However, they are beginning to feel that the few concessions they have received is not enough. What an ungrateful lot, to be sure. They say they will be calling a referendum on independence next year about the same time that Scotland will have one though the cases are somewhat different: Scotland is not the richest part of the United Kingdom and its independence is unlikely to worry investors too much, whereas the loss of Catalonia will deal a very heavy blow to the already weak Spanish economy.

As EUObserver says:
The secessionist movement in Spain’s wealthiest region gained momentum last week after a million people locked hands to form a 400km human chain on its "border" with Spain.

Some of the organisers called for a referendum while others demanded immediate independence.

The demonstration, held on Catalonia’s national day, was a symbolic reference to the 1989 Baltic Way 600km human chain which demanded independence from the Soviet Union.
The Spanish Prime Minister says that only the Spanish government in Madrid has the right to call a referendum so all these demands are nonsense. (And we know from their attitude to Gibraltar how much attention the Spanish government pays to referendums.)

Another problem has reared its head, as described by the Wall Street Journal and EUObserver.
The European Commission's vice president said Spain's wealthy region of Catalonia would have to leave the European Union if it declared independence, remarks that disappointed many in the growing Catalan secessionist movement.

"If one part of a territory of a member state decides to separate, the separated part isn't a member of the European Union," Joaquín Almunia said on Monday during a conference in Barcelona, in one of the strongest statements on the issue by a leader of the EU's administrative body.
The EU,as we know is all in favour of strengthening regions just as long as they don't get above themselves and start demanding that they should be seen as member states. After all, what the EU wants to do away is member states, turning them into subsidiary organizations of varying sizes but all integrated into a harmonized EU. They do not want another uppity nation state messing things up at various levels.

Catalan politicians are not happy:
In an op-ed in the New York Times last week, Catalan president Artur Mas described Catalonia as a European Union partner for strengthened political unity, security and economic growth.

He said the region is bound to Spain through history and close family ties, but wants to have more control over its own economy, social services, and politics.

He noted that Catalonia pays out more on average than other regions to the central government but receives less public expenditure per capita in return.

The region fought for the Second Republic in the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939, but its defeat led to the Catalan language being outlawed under Francisco Franco’s 40-year military rule.

Catalonia's autonomy and language was not recognised again until 1978.

“Catalans are deeply pro-European and we do not imagine a future outside the European Union,” said Mas in the US op-ed.

Catalonia's pro-independence regional government economics secretary, Andreu Mas-Colell, who attended the Almunia conference, shared the sentiment.

He said Catalans belong inside Europe and that Alumnia’s statement is based on a strict legal reading.
Nor are the Catalans getting much support from those Baltic States they wish to emulate.
The press in Spain had given ample coverage to comments supporting the right of self-determination attributed to Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius, who occupies the EU's rotating presidency.

On Monday, Lithuania's Foreign Ministry posted a statement expressing "concern over the tendentious and erroneous interpretation" by the Spanish press over the Lithuanian position.

The statement said, "The Soviet occupation of the Baltic nations cannot be compared with the situation in Spain. Spain is the democratic country, a member of the European Union, our close partner in the EU and NATO."

It said all domestic matters in Spain "should be resolved according to democratic and legal measures that exist within the country, respecting the Constitution."
How will this affect matters in Scotland? As the Scotsman pointed out, this adds to the uncertainty.
The SNP Government hopes to negotiate its EU membership – including opt-outs from the euro, free travel areas and a budget cut – in the period between the referendum in September 2014 and its proposed independence day in March 2016 if Scots vote Yes.

But the future status of an independent Scotland’s place in Europe remains unresolved.
Can we, therefore, assume that any region of any member state breaking away from it loses its place in the European Union? Dear me. Have we not heard from various politicians including Hizonner the Mayor of London that EU membership is harmful to London and especially the City? Well, here is the answer. Let London declare independence from the UK, defenstrate the Westminster politicians and Whitehall civil servants, and the EU will declare that London can no longer be part of it. And the Porcine Aviation Force will take off in large numbers.

Friday, September 13, 2013

More to German history than Hitler

Or so say the moderately eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. It has been my contention for a very long time that as soon as Germans seriously start appreciating that point (and many do already) the end of the EU will be nigh. It is kept together by constant references to those twelve terrible years from 1933 to 1945 and studious avoidance of everything that happened before and after.

In a report in The Irish Times we read that AfD is trying broaden its policies beyond just being against the bail-out and talking about foreign policy, harking back to that undoubted genius, Count Otto von Bismarck.
“After the experiences of the Hitler years we Germans have a tendency to view the definition and pursuit of national interests as per se a bad thing,” said Mr Alexander Gauland, a founding AfD member, in Berlin.

“This view is shared neither by our friends and neighbours nor our co-players on the world stage.”

Mr Gauland said it was time for Germany to look further than Hitler into its past for a reappraisal of the European politics of Otto von Bismarck, the Iron chancellor who united Germany.

In particular he said Germans should show greater understanding for Russia, given Russia’s support for German interests over the centuries. Neither Germany nor Europe had an interest in a further weakening of “Russia and, with it, the entire Euro-Asian space”. “We Germans sometimes forget that Russia stood by Germany at important points in its history and defended Prussia from collapse,” he said, praising Russian support during the foundation of the German Reich in 1871 and German unification in 1990.
Actually, he is wrong about Russian support for German reunification in 1990 but moderately correct about the rest. However, what we should all be looking at is the natural Anglo-German alliance, which has a long history as well, going back beyond the German Reich.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013