Civitas Blog

The EU’s ‘period of reflection’ is coming to an end. The stalling manoeuvre implemented by the European Council after the rejection of the EU Constitution by France and the Netherlands last year has been marked by scant action and a fair amount of hand-wringing. So one and all will surely be glad to hear that the EU is now moving on from ‘reflection’… to ‘re-assessment.’ Having retreated into a huddle over the weekend, senior EU Commission officials emerged to declare that they were now ready to focus on a ‘positive policy driven agenda’. Do not fear, reader, you are not alone in wondering what this all actually means!

The Times on Monday announced the launch by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) of two themed charity funds, which invest in a portfolio of voluntary sector organisations, rather like a unit trust invests in a portfolio of shares. In actual fact, the funds were launched earlier in the year, but the publicity will presumably be welcome. The charities selected for the funds are being audited by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), which advises donors on how to give more effectively. As an increasing number of organisations engage in this kind of auditing – Guidestar provides an apparatus for scrutinising charities and the Centre for Social Justice runs a list of recommended charities on its Effective Giving website – the CAF-NPC venture points up a revolution in what Rockefeller called the ‘business of beneficence.’

Thank goodness that, for his part in the 9/11 attack on the Trade Towers, Zacarias Moussaoui was tried and sentenced in the US rather than here. Had he received a life sentence here, then he would have been back in flight-school before you could say Charles Clarke, let alone Jack … Straw or David Blunkett.

Were Moussaoui to have been imprisoned here for life, then, surely, to make room for another convict it would not have been long before his sentence was commuted. After that, he would have been released into the community rather than deported to obviate his need to seek asylum to avoid deportation, thereby risking the Government no longer being able to boast proudly about having met its target of reduced asylum applications.

I kid ye not, as the late lamented Frankie Howard used to say.

Those of a similar generation to the present writer will be able vividly to recall just how dull it was to grow up as a child in Britain during the 1950s.

The Goons, Billy Cotton, and then Hancock’s Half Hour on the BBC Home Service (now Radio 4) in the background, over a bland but nutritious and entirely alcohol-free Sunday lunch – for the adults as well, that is!

Then followed a walk to the local park for a desultory kick around of a football, before home to tea of jam and bread, with a few squashed fly-biscuits or a slice or two of Jamaica ginger-cake as well if lucky, all eaten to the accompanying strains of a worthy but dull edifying black and white TV programme, before homework and an early bed in preparation for the school-week ahead.

Back then cinemas did not open on Sundays before the evening. Nor were any professional football matches played on that day. Pubs opened briefly for an hour or so at lunch-time, and the local high street was practically deserted with all shops shut apart from corner newsagents and convenience stores.

It wasn’t just post-war austerity at work here.

Much of the dullness of a traditional British Sunday back then -- and even well before, since, as I recall, even Friedrich Nietzsche commented on their dullness in Beyond Good and Evil -- was deliberate.

Sunday trading laws imposed severe restrictions on trading and entertainment to preserve and protect the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath.

The former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Lord Herman Ouseley, and Jane Lane, a nursery education expert, are recommending that nursery teachers ‘help children unlearn racist attitudes’. In an article appearing in the journal Race Equality Teaching, Ouseley and Herman argue that nursery staff should look out for child play where there are signs of racial or cultural prejudice.

Pro-Europeans often talk about the new brand of foreign policy that the EU offers, where it tempts nations with benefits of association and membership in exchange for reform. Its results have been mixed, often undermined by Europe’s lack of foreign policy mandate and ponderous lack of clear foreign policy direction. However, in the case of Serbia-Montenegro and the hunt for Ratko Mladić, it could well be working.

The arrest of Mladić was one of the key criteria that needed to be fulfilled for commencement of the third round of negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the EU and Serbia-Montenegro. Deadlines for his arrest set by Carla del Ponte, the war crimes prosecutor driving for the capture of both him and his former political boss Radovan Karadžić, have been missed and moved several times before this point. I’m sure that as the deadline approached many of us assumed that the EU would simply move it again, possibly with a “stern” reprimand. There was certainly doubt that the EU would take action prior to the May 21st referendum on independence for the Republic of Montenegro, considering that the EU does not wish the current union of the two republics to end. Cessation of accession negotiations will certainly have a detrimental affect on this vote, as evinced by the speaker of the Montenegrin Parliament who said that the disruption of the SAA talks was “another reason why Montenegro should be an independent state”. However regardless of these concerns, Olli Rehn, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, ended the negotiations, citing concerns about the rule of law “Serbia must show that no-one is above the law and that anyone indicted for serious crimes will face justice”.

Housing has once more become a major political issue, repoliticised in areas where the supply is limited and the allocation methods are leaving an increasing number of people feeling disenfranchised and angry – areas like Barking and Dagenham, where the BNP picked up 11 seats in last week’s local elections, and Birkenhead, Frank Field’s constituency. A Labour MP of the traditional sort, Field wrote an excellent article in the Daily Telegraph, ‘Why Labour is losing the working class’, which went some way to identifying the key causes of resentment. Of support for the BNP, he said:

“It represents a clash between people's sense of fairness, grounded in a collective social ethic, and what they see as the foreign idea of individualised rights. Housing remains a flash point. The working-class sense of fairness is mocked by allocation policies that put at the top of the list groups who, in the local community's eye, have less claim than other groups. A policy of housing the homeless is noble. It is the way it is carried out which is so objectionable.

I have never heard a constituent - even one who has waited in the housing queue for decades - argue against a policy that looks after the homeless. What so many of my constituents object to, as I do, is the way the homeless jump to the top of the queue and are able to choose the best homes. This policy strikes at the very sense of fairness that working people hold. Fairness demands that those who have striven longest should rise to the top of the queue and take the best housing. The accommodation they vacate should then be offered to the homeless.”

His conclusion is along the lines of old working class values: those who have contributed to the community should be rewarded. That would indeed be a fairer allocation policy.

This came up in two discussions on the Today programme yesterday. They can both be listened to on the Today website, at 07.35 and 08.10. In the first, there was a quotation from a Barking & Dagenham voter who, expressing the frustrating of the poor working class in Britain, said that “the professional people are always putting us down, calling us racist and that, but, well, you know, we can’t afford to escape like them…” In the second, in direct contrast, Ruth Kelly, egregiously ignoring the wisdom of her fellow Labour MP, exhibited herself unable or unwilling truly to address this problem. Until she does so, Labour’s share of the vote will only continue slipping.

In last Thursday’s desperate re-shuffle of his fellow passengers on the deck of the rapidly sinking Titanic that is his administration, Prime Minister Tony Blair exchanged the ministerial portfolio of Ruth Kelly from education to that of local government and equality.

Her suitability for both new ministerial offices has since been called into question on grounds of alleged hypocrisy.

I think these charges against her misplaced, but shall argue below that, for other reasons, she does face insuperable difficulties in being able to remain in ministerial office in good conscience.

Our newspapers today are dominated by reports and comment on two official reports released yesterday concerning the London suicide-bombings of last July.

On the strength of these reports, some British newspapers are seeking to impugn the savvy of the British Security services for not having made better use of the intelligence that they apparently had at their disposal at the time that could conceivably have led to their preventing the attacks had better use been made of it.

Others impugn the reports themselves as being a white-wash because they fail to hold anyone to account for the failure of the security services to nip the plot in the bud, given what they apparently had on some of the bombers.

As we all know, the vision of hind-sight is 20-20.

Equally, however, it remains true that the security services could undoubtedly have been more effective had they had at their disposal at the time more resources. They should have had. Their failure to have been supplied with them is a massive indictment of the present government.

Signs are starting to appear that the government is finally beginning to realise just how badly it misjudged policy in connection with diversity and social cohesion.

How cool it all seemed back in the early days of the first Blair administration, when the door of Number Ten was opened to the glitterati who had endorsed the return of New Labour, to swallow on behalf of the country hook, line and sinker every provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as to set about fostering social inclusion and cohesion by the aggressive promotion of multiculturalism.

Several tube-bombings later -- plus the recent revelations that a thousand plus foreign criminals convicted and imprisoned for serious offences have been released into the community rather than made to leave, so as to obviate their needing to claim asylum to avoid deportation and thereby embarrass the government, plus recent surveys that reveal dangerously high levels of alienation among young British-born Muslims combined with the recent revelations about how that alienation might be being actively fomented by Muslim colleges they are attending on British university validated degree programmes -- have all combined to prompt the government to reconsider some of its previous policies in these adjacent areas.

It was reported in yesterday's Observer and confirmed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning that the Government is considering amending the 1988 Human Rights Act so as to restore to the courts and the Home Secretary power to deport convicted foreign criminals, upon completing their sentences, without their being able to avoid deportation by claiming asylum.

Today, it was also announced that the government s to reconsider citizenship education in schools, as well as how Islam may be taught at degree level to British Muslims. In the case of both reviews, the aim is to ensure both forms of education promote rather than impede social cohesion.

These are promising signs of sanity dawning at last among the senior ranks of the government.

But it may all be too little and too late.

It has been a very rocky week on the carbon dioxide market. A fortnight ago, carbon dioxide was selling at €30 a tonne, but last Friday the price had plummeted to €9 a tonne. Since then, the price has stabilised at around €15. Nevertheless, this sudden panic has resulted in concern about the stability of what had been heralded as the new wonder commodity, and more seriously still, has brought into question the effectiveness of the European Union’s flagship policy to cut EU emissions. The crisis was caused when the EU accidentally released data on Friday that showed that member states had actually produced less CO2 than had been expected. This meant that there were too many carbon trading permits floating around and hence the crash in the value of carbon. At a basic level, it is the EU that is to blame for this mess and they need to think about what their role is to be, if they are to prevent similar events in the future.

The bravest and most articulate apostate critic of Islam in the West has been stabbed in the back by those who should have most supported her.

The manner and speed with which Dutch immigration minister and aspirant leader of the liberal party (VVD) Rita Verdonk yesterday set about the task of stripping fellow- party member and Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali of her citizenship because of lies she had admitted she told when applying for asylum some 14 years ago are as truly and utterly appalling as they herald a form of capitulation to those who would prefer appeasement to Dutch Islamists than confrontation that is truly dismaying in terms of what it heralds for the future of this once liberal nation.

There is an excellent article by Camilla Cavendish in The Times today, arguing for a revaluation of the relationship between the state and the family. I'm reminded that in Brave New World the family is systemmatically fragmented to the point where the most horrific swearword is 'mother'. We have gone too far already. Let's not go there.

There was a revealing exchange on the Today programme yesterday morning, with sometime culture secretary Chris Smith, would you believe it, who was defending western values, and Tariq Ramadan, who was not.

The current union between the states of Serbia and Montenegro, which was established in 2003 in the wake of the break-up of Yugoslavia, could well end this weekend as Montenegrins go to the polls for a referendum on their independence. Polling data suggests that the independence movement, which is led by Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Đjukanović, is currently backed by 52-53% of support. However, in the case of Montenegro, a majority of 52-53% voting for independence will result instead in the preservation of the union. Why is that? Because the EU has said that in the case of Montenegrin independence, a binding majority of no less than 55% must be achieved. Democracy is obviously a much more subjective issue for Javier Solana than for the rest of us.

Three aspects of this situation are particularly outrageous: firstly that the EU has dared to redefine what constitutes an absolute majority in a democratic vote and in doing so has set a precedent that will almost certainly haunt us in the future. Secondly that the EU has the audacity and the authority to make such demands upon a nation that is not even bound to EU by a Stability and Association Agreement, let alone actual membership. And thirdly that with the polls showing what they do in Montenegro, Solana’s obscure electoral mathematics looks likely to leave the nation in a dangerous grey area by which a majority of people have rejected the current government and political union and yet not achieved the arbitrary majority required to gain actual independence.

According to an OfSTED study, money spent on books is a better investment than money spent on computers. The data for OfSTED’s study was gathered from nearly a third of the country’s primary schools and a survey of 540 head teachers. That the study found the impact of books on test scores to be greater than that of technology is something of a blow to a government which is hooked on both test scores and the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in schools.

Yesterday Britain and 21 other EU nations (not Spain, Hungary or Denmark) agreed a ‘code of conduct’ with the European Defence Agency (EDA), on national defence procurement. This weakens the abilities of participating nations to derogate from European Directive 2004/18/EC on competition in public procurement through use of the ‘national security’ clause of Article 296 of the Maastricht Treaty. Its aim, as summarised by BusinessWeek, is to open the EU’s €70bn arms industry to cross-border competition. It has provoked a vocal response from euro-sceptics who see it as another seditious step towards the creation of a European defence identity, however such a reaction could well be masking the real risks of the agreement.

There's an excellent article by Douglas Murray on the Social Affairs Unit website about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's departure from Holland.

Having chosen to occupy the same centre ground New Labour has monopolised to such electoral effect these last ten years, David Cameron is busy re-positioning his party to present the public with a far more friendly and caring image of it than has appeared for many a long year.

Meanwhile, the goverment sinks steadily deeper into the immigration morass it has equally as carefully long cultivated but which now appears to be its undoing.

The new Tory party leader is cultivating his new image for his party by focusing on quality-of-life issues as against straightfoward economic ones.

Earlier this month, after a well-publicised dash to the pole, he spoke about the environment. This week he has chosen to highlight the work-life balance.

Whether it’s the prospect of a rain-filled Bank holiday week-end or that of endless televised football games during the imminent World Cup, the newspapers today make particularly depressing reading.

Two domestic news stories stand out as a testament to the period in office of a party whose record will one day mark it as having been among the most destructive of the once great institutional fabric of this nation.

One of these stories concerns health; the other pensions.

A few months ago, much of the talk surrounding the erstwhile EU Constitution was about ‘cherry-picking’. Yet now that the cherry-picking season is upon us, European politicians are demonstrating a striking reluctance to roll up their sleeves and get on with the job. For those of you not fully initiated into the intricacies of eurospeak, cherry-picking refers to the idea that while it might be impossible to ratify the entire EU Constitution, the most palatable elements might be plucked and rehashed in an acceptable form – a sort of EU law cherry pie, to over-extend a metaphor. But when EU foreign ministers met last weekend to discuss the future of the constitution, there was little agreement on anything. So, for the foreseeable future, it looks like stagnation will continue to be the order of the day for the EU Constitution project. In fact, on the basis of the weekend’s discussions, I would go as far as to say that governments’ optimism about the possibilities for ‘practical progress' in the absence of constitutional reform also looks dubious.

A delicious item of news appears in today’s Times to lighten, if not light up, your day.

It is reported that Melbourne brothel owners have asked the state authorities to exempt their premises from its ban on smoking in the workplace to stop their employees returning to the streets to ply their trade to escape the ban.

Speaking on behalf of the brothel-owners in explanation of their request, a spokesmen for them is quoted as saying:

‘People smoke when they fornicate’.

While that might well hold true of the more steamy Ozzies, we sedate Pomms prefer to postpone the mandatory cigarette reserved for these occasions until stumps are drawn at close of play.