Lose the Delusion

Further reading

Still light blogging, I'm afraid. So, in the meantime, a heads up on a couple of items. I would strongly recommend reading the newly published paper by Kirsty Hughes: 'The British debate on the EU Constitution: Can the Referendum be Won?' (Download the full text in Word) It neatly covers and summarises the wide range of issues at play with the refendum and provides some interesting pointers on how things could develop in the coming months. Also, Toby at Straight Banana has just published another excellent post. This time he has written on the European Commission. Plenty of food for thought in both pieces.

A bronze and two golds

Yesterday was a big day for Slovenia. First of all, it became the third country to ratify the European Constitution. In a vote before the parliament, the new treaty was approved by a thumping 79 votes to 4. Next stop now should be the referendum in Spain, on 20 February. Meanwhile, over at the AFOE awards, the Glory of Carniola, a daily slice of life from Slovenia, was voted the best European weblog and best weblog focused on a single country or region. Congratulations to Michael. In fact, congratulations to all the other winners, runners-up and nominees in the awards. It was a great competition. Champagne all round!

Constitutional round-up

Following yesterday's post, I thought that it might be useful to offer a quick round up of where we stand across Europe with regard to the Constitution. The latest news is that Belgium will not hold a referendum after Prime Minister Verhofstadt was unable to gain enough political support for the move. Over in Italy, the Constitution has just received the endorsement of the lower house. It passed with a thumping 436 in favour with just 28 against and 5 abstentions. It now goes to the Senate for another vote. Meanwhile, Slovenia is still on course to become the third country to complete the ratification process when Parliament convenes on 1 February for a vote. (By the way, every Slovenian MEP voted in favour during the recent EP vote on the Constitution.)

Of course, the big test everyone is now concentrating on is the referendum in Spain, which will take place in about three weeks time. By all accounts, it should have few problems passing over there. A recent poll taken by French pollsters CSA in four countries shows that support for treaty in Spain could be as high as 80%. However, in news that will not come as a surprise, the same poll shows a relatively low level of support in Britain. Still, with 40% already saying that they are in favour things are certainly not entirely as bleak as pro-Europeans often like to imagine. Over the channel things are still looking good. The 'Yes' vote is holding up well in France, with two thirds in favour. Interestingly, support for the treaty appears to be even higher in traditionally Eurosceptic Denmark, where the split is currently put at 69% in favour as opposed to 31% against. Anyway, the progress of ratification across the Union can be followed here. You might also want to check on EU Constitution, which is also following the campaigns.

A quick snort of coffee!

Holy swivel-eyed superheroes on horseback, Batman!

The patriotic case

So, it's official. The government has finally unveiled the European Union Bill (PDF), which sets out the terms for the referendum on the European Constitution. As revealed earlier by the FT, the question that will be put to voters regarding the European Constitution will be as follows:

Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?

No complications. No qualifiers. No frills. Just a plain and simple question. (For Welsh speakers, the question is: "A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig dderbyn y Cytuniad a fyddai’n sefydlu Cyfansoddiad i’r Undeb Ewropeaidd?") At the same time, the bill also clarifies who will be entitled to vote. Contrary to earlier fears from Eurosceptics that Blair was looking to increase the 'Yes' vote by any means possible, voting will not be open to European citizens living in Britain. Only those people eligible to vote in parliamentary elections, and peers eligible to vote in local elections, will have a say. This actually means that resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens will be able to participate. But, as Martin Stabe (who is a disenfranchised European living in Britain) points out, this raises several questions, such as the possibility that Irish citizens could have two votes.

In any case, the clarification of these technical issues means that at long last the cards are on the table and we all now know what we are facing. In some small way, it does feel as though the campaign has now officially started. And while no one in the pro-European camp expects the government to get more actively involved in the coming months, there is nevertheless hope that once the general election is out of the way, we will see a concerted effort by Blair and the rest of the cabinet to make the case both for Britain's place in Europe and for British support for the Constitution. Indeed, I am sure that many of us are this morning hoping that the written statement released by Jack Straw to coincide with the publication of the bill is an indication of what we can expect from the government when things do kick off in earnest:

Anti-Europeans have a habit of wrapping themselves in the union flag in order to paint Europe as a threat to Britain's national sovereignty and way of life. But the real patriotic case is overwhelmingly in favour of Britain's engagement in the European Union. It is time pro-Europeans claimed this argument. At stake is nothing less than the very nature of Britain's power in the world.

You'll certainly find no arguments against these sentiments here. In fact, I expect to hear a lot more of this fighting talk in future. While some might like to call the Foreign Secretary a liar, I am glad that to hear such a clear statement from a senior minister that pro-Europeans are not in fact traitors, but truly believe that the patriotic case is in favour of a strong Britain playing a full and leading part in a strong and united European Union.

Exploiting the EU

In a week where immigration has taken centre stage in Britain, Harry's Place highlights a truly sad story about the exploitation of immigrant workers from Hungary. I really wish that these stories were few and far between, but they are not. This sort of thing is happening throughout the EU, although perhaps not on the sort of scale or with as much unpleasantness as in this case. For example, here in Cyprus many Slovaks come over seeking work in the tourism sector. However, the low wages they are offered are often not enough to match the high cost of living. They cannot even make ends meet, let alone save some money. I know of many cases where after just a few short weeks they have to pack up and go home; bitter, disillusioned and out of pocket. While I am sure that anyone reading such stories will be moved, these examples are particularly shameful for anyone who believes in the European Union. These workers from Hungary and Slovakia are, after all, our fellow citizens and as such have clear rights that deserve to be better protected by governments, especially as they rarely know their rights under the law as well as people from the EU-15. And certainly in the case of the UK, these workers are providing real benefits to the economy.

Get out the vote!

Forget the Oscars. The only award nominations that really count round these parts are for the AFOE 1st European Weblog Awards. Cheers a million to everyone who nominated LTD, which is up for the best new blog award. Looking through the various categories there is really a great line up of contenders. I am really pleased to see that Phil at Cabalamat Journal (Best Political, Best EU), Alex at The Yorkshire Ranter (Best Weblog, Best UK, Best Political), Nosemonkey at Europhobia (Best UK, Best Political) and Eric at East Ethnia (Best Southeast European, Best Single Country, Best New) have all been nominated. However, special mention must go to Michael at The Glory of Carniola (Best Weblog, Best Single Country) and my friend Jamie over at Blood and Treasure (Best UK). You can blame them for getting me into this blogging business in the first place. Anyway, enough talk. Get over there and vote!

A diplomatic question

The Foreign Office is often held up as one of the most pro-European institutions in Britain. In fact, I would not disagree with this. In my experience British diplomats do tend to be pro-European. But there are several points about all this that confuse me. For a start, they often say that familiarity breeds contempt. Having had the most exposure to Europe you would think that they would by now be against the EU if they felt that it was in any way bad for Britain. Secondly, if the EU will take away British control over foreign policy, then their support for membership would seem to be akin to a case of Turkeys voting for Christmas. In view of this, perhaps someone can explain to me why the Foreign Office, which would be best placed to know the shortcomings of the EU and would have the most to lose from further integration if this truly meant a loss of control over foreign policy, is so supportive of British membership of the EU?

The price of democracy

Further to my recent comment about the government spending forty grand on a public information campaign, it has been brought to my attention that this is but a small drop in the ocean as compared with the whopping £80 million that will be spent on holding the actual referendum. True, but there is an easy answer to this. Let Parliament decide. Not every EU member state is having a referendum. In fact, at current count, less than half will put it to a national vote. And what do you think the other side would say about that? Yeah, thought so! So a costly referendum it is then. And just to pre-empt any comments that we wouldn't have to spend any of this money if we left the EU altogether, I presume that a decision to withdraw would not simply be taken by Parliament. Because, of course, if Parliament is fit to decide on leaving the EU, then surely it is competent to decide on closer integration. Therefore, I take it that we could kiss goodbye to another £80 million! Anyway, the point is that arguments about costs can easily be deployed by both sides of the debate.

Arms and the ban

After considerable debate, the European Union appears ready lift the arms embargo on China that was put in place in the aftermath of Tiananmen. Although France and Germany have long argued for a lifting on the ban, many EU members, including Britain, had resisted. However, in the last ten days London has finally signalled that it too is finally ready to restart weapons exports to Beijing. Although no timetable has yet been put in place, the expectation is that it will happen at some point in 2005.

Needless to say, many will see this as welcome proof of the high degree of foreign policy convergence that now exists between EU members states. However, at the same time, there are also fears that the move will spell a serious split between the EU and the US. I am not so sure that this will be the case. While Washington has already made it very clear that it strongly opposes the move, it would seem as though this is geared more towards trying to prevent the lifting of the ban, rather than a statement of consequence should exports to China resume in the future. For a start, Blair would not take this step if he felt that it would fundamentally undermine relations with Washington. Secondly, Jack Straw made it very clear that the rules that will be put in place will be very stringent. This is not going to be a free-for-all. Finally, the EU is by no means the only close US ally currently considering selling weapons to China.

Do WE even want to belong?

Cheers to Nosemonkey over at Europhobia for drawing attention to the fact that the Yes Campaign has relaunched its efforts to persuade Britain to take a more favourable view of Europe and the Euro. It's about time. However, I am not going to pretend to be particularly overjoyed at the news. As he also points out, there seem to be little hope that they are going to do any better now than they did in the past. Their press release barely made it into the national media.

At the risk of repeating the excellent points raised at Europhobia, sadly this half-arsed approach to campaigning seems to be part and parcel of the general pro-European efforts in Britain. The Britain in Europe lot also seem to be lacking any sort of drive, to put it mildly. One prominent pro-European recently complained to me that frequent attempts had been made to spur them on, but without success. They appeared completely disinterested in starting their efforts now. Instead they just wanted to sit back and wait until after the general election. At that point the received wisdom is that the pro-European forces would come together and start their effort in earnest. Maybe they do believe that an alliance of the government, the LibDems, pro-European Tories (what few might be left), trade unions, business organisation, and so on, will swing things in their favour. I certainly don't. As the Nice Treaty vote in Ireland, and several others in Europe, have shown time and time again, even when the vast majority of political forces favour a particular approach, small, well-organised campaigns that play on people's specific fears can be enough to lead to a rejection. For example, in Ireland, one of the main sticking points was the perceived challenge to the country's traditional neutrality. Now just think how many issues there are in Britain.

Meanwhile, UKIP and Vote No have been active for months, and have the support of much of the mainstream media. (By the way, RKS has finally quit UKIP. I am actually quite happy for the loons. Listening to his completely incoherent and demented rant on Sky News yesterday, which was apparently repeated on Channel 4, I think that they are better off without him. He made absolutely no sense whatsoever!) Anyway, the general lack of action and the poor communications management displayed by the pro-European organisations is really unforgivable. And then, to add insult to injury, the FT reports that the government is finally sorting its act out and shelling out some cash to hire some PR specialists to start the campaign - much to the indignation of the usual suspects. What's so bad about that? The sum being made available is a pitiful £40,000. Yes, you read that right. A measly forty grand! What the hell are you meant to do with that? Sometimes you have just got to wonder if the pro-Europeans are even that interested in belonging to the EU. The more it goes, the more I believe that it might just be better for the UK to leave the EU and let people discover the benefits of being a member the hard way.

Four more years

Well, today marks the official start of four more years of George W. Bush. As Blair has suggested, I am actually rather optimistic that the next term will not be as divisive as the last, either in terms of transatlantic relations or in terms of relations between EU members. In fact, recent months have seen a curious absence of fractures. I don't think we have ever seen a period where there is so much agreement across the EU in terms of external relations. Iraq very rarely features as a debate. Instead attention has been focused on a number of areas where the European countries have shown a very high degree of cohesion. Take, for example, the events in Ukraine and the response to the tsunami in Asia.

Likewise, the room for tension across the Atlantic seems to have diminished. Quite apart from the fact that Bush is far more focused on domestic legacy issues, such as social security and tax reform, which will lead to conflicts at home, there appears to be a willingness to try to stabilise relations with Europe and rebuild ties with France and Germany. His visit to Europe next month will certainly be an important step in this direction. At the same time, Condoleezza Rice clearly stated during her senate confirmation hearing that her intention is to pursue better relations with Europe during her term as Secretary of State.

In your English faces

One of the things that I really dislike about your typical Eurosceptic is that they appropriate a notion of 'Britishness' as a cover for what really amounts to parochial Englishness. While I am prepared to accept that there are Eurosceptics in both Scotland and Wales, the loudest and most vociferous opponents of the EU are most usually to be found in England. You can see this clearly in the blogosphere. Apart from the dedicated Eurosceptic sites, it is interesting that a number of the other 'British' blogs that rant and rave about Europe seem to have the word English prominently displayed in the title.

Anyway, I have always wondered how these English Eurosceptics, who seem to adore the British union, would respond when faced with the same arguments from Scots or Welsh nationalists as they deploy against Europe: the right to exercise national sovereignty, the right to rule themselves, the lack of democracy, the imposition of regulations from outside, etc. Well maybe now we will have a chance to find out. Via Doctorvee, please welcome what might well be the first Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP)/Scottish nationalist blog: Independence. Let's see how well the loons can fight their own arguments! My bet is that they can't. By their logic, if British should have a right to leave Europe then Scotland must have a right to leave Britain. Oh, and before anyone tries the line that many Scottish nationalists might also be Eurosceptic, I agree that they might well be. But at least they are not being hypocritical in their position. Well, not unless there is a serious independence movement in the Orkneys or Shetlands that I am not aware of and the SNP opposes.

A pacific solution

Eighteen bloody days! That is all it took before Robert Kilroy-Silk made the news in 2005. (Not counting the bizarre profile the NY Times ran on him just the other week.) Anyway, having failed in his ambitions to lead UKIP, he has been desperately trying to find other parties to lead. And, guess what? No one wants him. Faced with no other choice, he is now talking about setting up his own party. Apparently, the name under consideration is Veritas. And, truth be told, I would just love to see how that goes. Despite his claims to have been 'inundated' with calls to go it alone, you just have to wonder what losers would join a party set up by someone no one else wanted?

Still, I reckon I have a better idea for him. (I have mentioned it elsewhere, but what the hell, I might as well push it again on my own blog.) Look, the guy has a bit of political experience and is obviously desperate for glory and a chance for some power, even if it is only over a small band of followers. He is also loaded. At the same time, you have these tiny little nations in the middle of the Pacific looking for some ready cash. Answer? They sell him the right to be prime minister. He'd love it, especially when he could double up as ambassador to...well, anywhere he fancied. And let's not forget that the South Pacific would be an ideal place for him to keep his tan in good working order. Meanwhile, the financial and PR benefits for the islanders could be huge. Just think how much the television rights would be worth for that reality show! Go on, tell me that this is not a suitably ridiculous solution to this whole ridiculous situation.

Defective leadership

Ha! Like many others, I laughed very loudly when I heard that Robert Jackson had defected from the Tories. This said, in a small way I was also rather saddened by the news. I'm not talking about the lack of decent opposition, as some people are bemoaning. As has often been pointed out, we haven't had a decent opposition in years. Instead, I am saddened that it simply proves that the old Tory left, which I have a lot of sympathy for, is now well and truly dead. Labour and the LibDems are indeed the natural homes of that wing of the party. There is no place for One Nation Tories in the Conservative Party anymore. As the older left-wingers retire there is no one to take take their place to put the brakes on the inexorable Conservative shift towards the nationalist right.

As was to be expected, Conservative policy towards Europe featured heavily in Jackson's decision to depart the party. (Howard's leadership was the other main stated reason). A particular comment that caught my attention was that party hostility towards Europe, 'has now hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations'. This obviously referred to the recent insane Tory announcement that its plans to repatriate the Common Fisheries Policy. While Jackson made the point well enough, in my view Howard was truly stuffed by his own sneering response to the defection:

"And Robert Jackson thinks we should join the euro and give up more powers to Brussels, and I don't want to join the euro and I think we should bring back powers from Brussels and decide things for ourselves in this country."

To my mind, this just confirmed how Eurosceptic he really is at a personal level. Hopefully, this should be enough to silence anyone who continues to peddle the nonsense line that you can vote Conservative and still be pro-European. As today's opinion in The Telegraph makes very clear: no, my friends, you can't!