Civitas Blog

If last weeks’ British wildcat strikes were redolent of protectionism, comments evoking similar feelings made by the French President have proved inflammatory to Prague, writes Lara Natale. Czech Prime Minister/incumbent EU President Mirek Topolánek has suggested that they may even end up contributing to the Czech Republic’s existing disinclination to ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

As the snow casts a thicker blanket over Britain than it has done in twenty years, thousands of sympathetic UK workers are joining walkouts over building jobs, which unions claim are being assigned to workers from other EU Member States... writes Lara Natale

More foreboding. The run-up to the summer European Parliamentary elections has officially started. Some disquieting new findings were released last week (courtesy of YouGov): writes Lara Natale ...

From the Czech presidency’s ominous start with the gas crisis in the previous Europe blog, they faced a diplomatic predicament of an altogether more jocular sort last week as the 'Entropa: Borders without Barriers' was unveiled in front of the European Council building in Brussels on the 12th January...writes Lara Natale

2008 went out with a proverbial bang as the Russo-Ukrainian dispute threatened to, and eventually did, plunge Europe into an energy crisis, writes Lara Natale. As the bells chimed midnight ringing in the New Year, the price Kiev should pay for gas in 2009 still hadn’t been agreed, thus gas supplies have been disrupted. An inauspicious start to the New Year and the Czech EU Presidency…

Last week’s EU Summit (10-11th Dec 2008) was hailed a victory by those lobbying the EU to stick by its Green credentials.

In the run up to the summit, there were tell-tale reports of squabbling between Member States about the EU’s 20-20-20 targets on energy use, which were agreed in March 2007. For example, it was reported that Italy and Poland were seeking concessions from the targets, because of concern about the potential burden on their states’ economies. However the French Presidency, which currently holds the rotating EU Presidency, was determined to establish measures to implement the targets before the (decidedly more EU-sceptic) Czech Republic assumes the EU Presidency in January 2009...

This Wednesday (17th December), MEPs will vote on a proposal to end the UK’s opt-out from the EU's Working Time Directive. If passed, the changes will make it illegal for workers to choose to work more than 48-hours in a week from 2011.

The Czech Republic will assume the rotating EU Presidency from France on 1st January 2009. President Klaus, a pronounced EU-sceptic, will be at the member states’ helm as the EU continues to negotiate on the Lisbon Treaty and the climate change package, and significantly also for the EP elections in June 2009. It is certainly going to be an interesting six months for the EU. For example, an enlightening exchange took place at Prague Castle last Friday 5 December 2008 between the Czech President, Václav Klaus, and EU representatives at the Conference of the Presidents of the European Parliament. The exchange resembled a ‘four knights game’ of chess, which is accordingly “fairly popular with beginners”; player were squaring up, devising their strategies and trying to stay one step ahead of the game...

Last week, Shadow Health minister, Andrew Lansley said that the recession could be “good for us”. Amidst public outcry he quickly apologised for his sarcastic and insensitive comment, but it seems that euro-enthusiasts might begin to see a silver-lining as the economic black clouds descend, because the economic turmoil has driven the debate about the UK joining the euro back into the headlines.

A new report by the National Intelligence Council has given a damning “estimation” of the EU in 2025, including an assertion that the “Europe will not step up to the plate and take the lead.” (P4).

In the American report, which predicts the geopolitical landscape in 2025, the EU does not feature prominently. However where it does appear (most noticeably in the section entitled ‘Europe: Losing Clout in 2025’ p.32) the report is less than favourable about the EU’s prognosis, “We believe Europe by 2025 will have made slow progress toward achieving the vision of current leaders and elites.”

Last week the European Union voted to scrap its much ridiculed regulations controlling the size and shape of fruit and vegetables sold within the EU.

At the forefront of global affairs last week was the election of the next US President, Barack Obama. As the leader of the ‘free world’ the US President wields such significant power that it undoubtedly impacts on Europe, acknowledged in a Gallup poll which found that two-thirds of Europeans believe that any action an American president makes will also affect their country. Clearly Europe has no say in the selection of this powerful position, although some may say it has been granted the preferred candidate. According to EUObserver, had Europeans had the chance to vote in this election they would have voted for Mr Obama by an overwhelming majority of four to one. However, is Europe prepared for any demands that may come from closer EU-US relations? Asks Claire Mullarkey.

The next European Parliament elections will take place in June 2009.

Direct elections for the European Parliament were introduced in 1979 in an attempt to increase the European Union’s democratic credentials - after all it is difficult for an appointed authority to lecture the developing world about the moral superiority and practical advantages of democracy (the European Commission and Council should take note). However at the last European Parliament election in 2004 turnout was only 45.6% across the EU, down from 49.51% in 1999 and 62% in 1979. In the UK only 38.9% of people voted. Raising voter turnout is crucial because the 2009 EP election will provide the only chance for EU electorates to have any say at all in the EU for the next 5 years.

A report published by the independent Brussels-based think tank the Thomas More Institute for European Studies examines the performance of the French Presidency of the EU Council so far, assessing its contribution to the long term development of EU policy. The Presidency, which started in July this year and will end on 31st December, scored 11.5 out of 20 possible marks for its mid-term performance, writes Judith Gollata.

Open Europe, the independent think tank backed by some of the UK’s leading business people, has produced the first independent report estimating of the cost and wider effects of the EU’s new package of climate change measures, currently still under negotiation.

Last Friday, Gordon Brown’s latest attempt to appear at “getting on with the job of running the country” saw him reshuffle EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, back into the UK cabinet.

In an interview held with the The Sunday Times yesterday, former Tory leader William Hague emphasized that, should the Tories win power in 2009 or 2010, a ‘Conservative government could still hold a referendum on Europe, even if the Lisbon Treaty had already been ratified.’ Considering a national ballot on Britain’s EU membership may seem a rather bold and possibly even clever move (if as stated in the article’s comment section the Tories are to ‘make Britain Great again’) - if only there was nothing else on that agenda, writes Judith Gollata.

Czech president Václav Klaus has said he will support Declan Ganley if he launches Libertas (the organisation which led the campaign for Ireland to vote 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty) as a pan-EU political party at the next European Parliament elections in 2009.

Ganley has said that he intends to transform the 2009 EP election into an ‘EU-wide referendum on the Lisbon Treaty’, therefore Klaus’ pronouncement of support could be a serious worry for Lisbon Treaty supporters because when the EP election is held in early June 2009 the Czech Republic will hold the rotating EU Presidency.

The EU is eager to prove itself as a geo-political force, most recently by leading negotiations to appease the troubles between Russia and Georgia. (That is if you discount the genius of the original peace deal constructed to enable Russia to legally continue its military force...)

But there is certainly a new, closer-to-home, battle which the EU still has to negotiate its way out of – it’s the economy stupid!

Chris Heaton-Harris, Conservative MEP and member of the Audit Committee of the European Parliament, has published a ‘rough guide to the EU budget’. The brief guide tries to make sense of the draft budgets for both the European Commission and European Parliament in 2009 and queries how MEPs can be expected to ‘tame the beast’, writes Laura Kelleher.

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and current holder of the EU Presidency, is finally in the press for the right reasons. He was credited with ‘brokering’ a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia last week; a ceasefire which Russia seems to have no intention of honouring. Nevertheless, Sarkozy seems keen to capitalise on his role in the Georgia-Russia negotiations in order to push on with the agenda of the French Presidency of the EU, writes Laura Kelleher.

Superheroes are back with a vengeance. Following the recent spate of blockbuster movies, superheroes are sexy again and no longer the exclusive territory of geeks and superhuman-timewasters. However, the originality required to keep demanding audiences engaged has seen the definition of “superhero” extended to distortion...

Commuters this morning faced the Metro's frontpage screamline that British Gas has just put its gas prices up 35 per cent and its electricity prices 9 per cent. At the same time, MPs are calling for a windfall tax on energy profits. The price rises (and profits) are, of course, ridiculous but it would be nice if the news coverage more often dug below the surface of the issue to find out what is driving these rises.

Ireland voted ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty On 13th June 2008. The ‘No’ campaign was led by single-issue pressure group Libertas whose exclusive objective was to secure a resounding ‘NO!’ to the Lisbon Treaty.

Well then, congratulations Libertas! Job done! Surely Libertas’ chairman, Declan Ganley can now return to massaging his business millions whilst enjoying the unique satisfaction of a political career that peaked in triumph (certainly a rare political achievement!) ... Sadly not - because victory in European politics is rarely sweet, or straightforward...

Brussels’ ever tightening grip on EU member states has seen supranational powers creep into the daily lives of ordinary Europeans. This loss of local power has eroded regional identities. However, some of Europe’s citizens are taking a stand against the surge of Brussels’ influence; battling the tide of EU domination in small, but hugely significant, ways.

Following Wales’ request last year, the EU is close to recognising Scottish, Gaelic and Welsh alongside the current 23 languages officially used by the EU institutions.
Welsh is already used in the country’s own Assembly and spoken by one in five members of the Welsh population, but under the new proposal, Scottish and Welsh citizens will be able to correspond with the EU Council of Ministers in their native language - a similar arrangement to the one negotiated for Spain's regional languages - Basque, Catalan and Galician - in 2005.
The added translation costs will be financed by the Scottish and Welsh governments.

When Slovenia shuffles off the podium of the EU Presidency tomorrow, France will assume the European Union’s top post for the second half of 2008. Among its priorities, the French leadership has asserted its ambition to formalise a common European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

However, France must prove that the EU needs a common ESDP to supersede member states’ security policies, and furthermore to demonstrate that the EU can be trusted to manage highly sensitive security and defence issues. 'Is the EU really up to the job?', asks Claire Daley.

Shortly before last week’s unexpected referendum decision in Ireland, a journalist in the Scotsman explained why the Irish had chosen to reject the Lisbon Treaty despite the benefits the EU have showered on their country in recent years. He wrote:

‘The anti-EU lobby … have plastered Ireland with posters warning that the treaty will force Ireland to surrender its sovereignty on moral, military and financial matters. One conjures up the memory of Ireland's patriot dead from the 1919-21 war of independence from Britain. "They died for your freedom. Don't throw it all away. Vote no," it reads.’

continued on the Centre for Social Cohesion blog.

Is summer now the season for publications pushing increased government intrusion into private conduct? The warm air has been accompanied by the somewhat chillier sensation of the release of two reports with some joyously Orwellian titles: The Politics of Public Behaviour from Demos and Creatures of Habit? The Art of Behavioural Change from the Social Market Foundation. From the mechanisms discussed in both these titles, it seems that the aspiration to get the state more involved in people’s lives remains as strong as ever among many policymakers, but combined (perhaps dangerously) with fresh research into behavioural economics.

Launching the buck on biofuel targets across the Atlantic, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson’s article in the Guardian last week stated “European biofuel production is having only a minimal effect on global prices”. (Roughly translated as: “It wasn’t me sir!”) But he warned “large-scale biofuel production, especially in the US, may be one of the factors pushing up global food prices as it diverts resources from food production.” (Roughly translated as: “It was him!”)

As Silvio Berlusconi prepares for strike three as Italy’s Prime Minister, the country’s recently defeated centre-left government has published details of all Italians’ taxable income on the internet, writes Claire Daley. People visiting the Italian tax authority website could snoop through their neighbours’ financial affairs for up-to 24-hours until a formal complaint was lodged.

As a date for the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty looms ever closer (and at times then drifts further away, depending on the political climate and EU’s chances of securing a ‘Yes’ vote) it seems the tussle for votes has become smothered in political confusion, writes Claire Daley.

The new, all singing and all dancing, EU visa is on its way! (Available exclusively for the artistically oriented.) Yes. It is official - artists are the latest minority in need of greater EU protection. Apparently, they battle wanton and excessive bureaucracy as they strive to make their gigs / exhibitions on time, writes Claire Daley.

And what is the EU’s solution to this obstructive bureaucracy? That’s right - more legislation!

The EU’s leg of the Olympic relay race has begun and a couple of mistimed exchanges when passing the baton (buck) of foreign policy has already left it without a hope of winning gold, writes Claire Daley.

As the Olympic torch shuffles its way across the continents, a parallel relay race is taking place within the EU. Actually with more characteristics of a giant game of ‘hot potato’, member states are passing the buck on an apparently “apolitical issue” - China’s handling of protesters in Tibet.

The EU: is there anything it cannot regulate? As Cato alerts us, apparently not. This week a wine business faces costs of £30,000 to comply with one of latest petty regulations while a bus route has to be artificially cut in three in order to comply with another, pointlessly wasting passenger time.

Europe Minister Jim Murphy recently gave “a guarantee that parliament can scrutinise the Lisbon Treaty” (mainly because he knows however much its members scrutinise the document they cannot amend even a single word of it and victory is assured by whip).

Parliament is currently debating the passing of yet more powers to the EU, through ratification of the successor treaty to the constitution, most eloquently described by Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and architect of the original document, as ‘the same letter; just in a different envelope’.

If fully ratified, the EU’s Lisbon Treaty will create a new role of permanent EU President. Tony Blair’s speech in Paris on 12th January has increased speculation that he aims to become the first full-time EU President, writes Claire Daley.

The possible contenders are currently keeping their cards carefully concealed. However, players are beginning to come to the table. Poker faces at the ready...

New Year celebrations; Auld lang syne, people uniting, setting off fireworks...

Slovenia takes on the EU Presidency for the first half of 2008 and New Year revelries look set to continue, with the diminutive state pledging to encourage supra-national unity to “strengthen the European perspective” and “promote dialogue between cultures, beliefs and traditions”, writes Claire Daley.

Brown’s belated signing of the Lisbon Treaty has been documented well enough and there’s not much I could add to the chorus of criticism that surrounds his doing so without granting what everyone wants for Christmas - a referendum. This despite earlier that very same day having declared to the House of Commons that ‘you cannot make decisions and assume that people will simply follow them. Most decisions can only be successful if people are part of the process!’ What was of more interest was the following end-of-year summit in Brussels and another opportunity for those at the heart of the EU to indulge themselves in some hollow posturing…

The EU has announced a European “reflection group” that will be active from next year to “review the EU’s long term future”. The nine member group is to be led by Felipe González (Spanish Prime Minister 1982-1996), with the former President of Latvia and President of the Finnish mobile phone giant Nokia, acting as joint Deputy Chairmen.

It seems the “wise men”, as they have been labelled, have already lost their way and are causing divisions and controversy before even getting to present their gifts.

Last weekend saw the EU-Africa summit held in Lisbon amid much controversy. Africa’s leaders came to Europe for a brief political safari, but one of the EU’s very own ‘Big Five’ game animals was to elude them. As promised Brown did not attend, apparently to avoid a “media circus” which would have distracted from attempts to negotiate trading relations, to the benefit of all EU and African nations. “Media Circus” avoided. Well, almost...

On Thursday 22nd November 2007 Civitas hosted a seminar with Global Vision and Chris Heaton-Harris MEP, on the impact the EU is having on education. A summary of the key points from the presentations and subsequent discussion are detailed below.

…our fishing industry slips into crisis.

The European Union’s Fisheries Commission places strict quotas on fishing in the North Sea, areas that were previously sovereign British territory. The purpose of this policy is to encourage fish stocks to recover from over fishing that previously took place because of the free for all policy that allowed several European countries to access the same waters. The perverse result is that between 40 and 60 per cent of all fish caught have to be thrown back dead into the sea, leaving us with the worst of all worlds: a growing environmental crisis as fish stocks fail to be replenished and a crippled fishing industry. This policy is no good, either for today’s fisherman or tomorrow’s consumer.

Apparently David Miliband was felt today by the ‘hand of history’, when delivering a speech to the College of Europe in Bruges. You would have thought that hand belonged to Baroness Thatcher given her famous speech of September 1988 at that location, when she laid out the fundamentals of British euroscepticism.

Instead it seems it was Miliband’s “personal history”, of a family history embroiled in continental strife, which directed his proclamation that the EU should not become a superpower but a global “role model” (yet more school boy language from the Foreign Secretary, who only recently childishly described the world as “rather a scary place”). This is skewed on a number of levels but more importantly acts as an opportunity to raise the points made by Thatcher in 1988 and their continued relevance to Britain’s place in Europe today.

There is one man across the English Channel who Gordon Brown must wish would shut up, writes Cem Suleyman.

The man I’m talking about is Valery Giscard d’Estaing (VGE), former President of the French Fifth Republic (1974-81).

VGE was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which drafted the original, and failed, EU Constitutional Treaty. Ever since the Constitutional Treaty was torpedoed by the non / nee votes in France and the Netherlands, VGE has made it his mission to make the people of Europe realise the error of their ways and eventually adopt the Constitutional Treaty in full. In the case of France’s non VGE has said “The French did not vote for or against this text, they avoided the text. This mistake must not happen again”. As you can see I’m not discussing the most humble of men!

A largely unreported news item from Italy has perfectly highlighted the differing attitudes to EU legislation between the member states.

The horrific rape and murder of a woman, allegedly committed by a Romanian immigrant, has shocked the Italian public and brought underlying tensions about immigration out into the open. The Italian government has responded to the crime by approving a measure which would allow police chiefs to expel EU citizens who they believe pose a threat to public safety.

I had my own Dads’ Army experience this weekend - strangely not when accompanying a Veterans’ Association on its battlefield tour of France, but outside the Palace of Westminster...

Now that the EU Reform Treaty has been agreed by the member states, speculation has turned to who will be appointed the first permanent “President of Europe”, writes Cem Suleyman. The Reform Treaty proposes that the President of the European Council replaces the existing six month rotating presidency. The President of the European Council will be elected for a fixed two and a half year term, renewable once. He or she will chair the Council meetings, help set the EU agenda and be a figurehead for the EU on the international stage. While key decisions will continue to be taken by the national heads of government, many fear the post is the forerunner to a directly elected President of Europe.

Europe’s leaders are to meet in Lisbon on Thursday and Friday to thrash out the final version of the EU Reform Treaty with Gordon Brown at the head table of Europe for the first time. It will be interesting to see how the other EU leaders take to Mr Brown considering his past dealings in the Economic Council of Ministers (Ecofin). Such meetings have been characterised by lecturing and sulking on the part of the PM with the ‘clunking fist’ in full flow!

Throughout the half-century that Britain has been debating further integration into Europe, our association with America has proved a crucial point of debate. With the history of this ‘special relationship’ spanning back decades and indeed predating even the earliest roots of the EU, many commentators have been reluctant to see closeness between British Prime Ministers and the US Presidency threatened by ever-closer union with Europe. However, certain international crises that have emerged in recent decades have led many to question the prudence of too-close alliance with our American peers, writes Pippa Knott.

Success, that is, if success is to be measured by the enlargement of EU membership, writes Edmund van der Byl-Knoefel. In these narrow terms, the EU has been an unqualified hit: the concept of a European Union began in 1958 with six members; it now has twenty-seven. However, the former President of the European Parliament, MEP Josep Borrell, does not necessarily agree, claiming, “we (the EU) are suffering from a crisis of heterogeneity and growth”.

The Government’s devious handling of the imminent EU Treaty, and its implications for British sovereignty, continues to encourage calls from within the UK for a referendum, but it may be pressure from beyond the UK that raises broader questions over Britain’s continued participation in EU Integration, writes Edmund van der Byl-Knoefel.

...well not news at all really, just the government’s bland response to an e-petition on the European Union Treaty (or ‘the document formerly known as Constitution’), which has just been posted on the Downing Street website.

I would not wish to inflict on readers the response in its entirety, but here’s a taster:

I am certainly no Alexis de Tocqueville, but a recent visit to the United States threw up some interesting comparisons with the increasingly United States of Europe and offered a great insight into American perceptions of European politics.

Although only just out of the spotlight of the endless reports on the recent ICG mandate (and no, this is not yet another spiel on the dry subject of the EU constitution), Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s nationalist Polish government is again railing against the rulings of EU authorities. While a dispute over the construction of a bypass through the Rospuda Valley might seem somewhat trivial on the surface, it actually cuts deep into that irritating thing the EU has been plagued with time and time again throughout its history: national sovereignty – writes Pippa Knott.

The repeated statements of our government’s intention to deny the electorate a referendum on the EU's IGC mandate represent a concerning willingness on behalf of the British political elite to go above the heads of the public when making hugely consequential decisions.

At the heart of any democracy lie its people: their history, their priorities and how they delegate their power to representative politicians. Politicians are actors, mandated by those people alone. So how can it be that the head of this British politic can contemplate ratifying the proposals of the controversial IGC mandate – intrinsic to which is a significant transfer of power – without first regarding the inclination of its heart?

My head is spinning. There’s been too much talk of the EU to take it all in – you could say I don’t have the constitution for it.

EUsceptics often grumble at the lack of coverage the EU gets, proportionate to its impact on the UK’s political life. Well they haven’t had too much to complain about over the last fortnight. As you may have noticed there was a (admittedly brief) tidal wave of media attention. The result? An overwhelmed electorate, left dazed and confused by the sheer mass of commentary on the summit’s wranglings and resultant ‘mandate’.

Reality: the vast majority of the population is simply unprepared and under-educated to be able to negotiate the complexities of EU negotiations.

No, this is not another piece on the state of British education…

Marta Kowalska is currently an intern on the EU Project. On the birthday of the Kaczynski twins, Poland's President and Prime Minister, she explains those factors determining the Polish position on the present constitutional debate.

It is difficult to observe the current political debate about the European constitution from an international perspective, as many of the decisions and arguments of member states seem irrational and hard to comprehend. It can be very frustrating that others are not able to see the ‘real’ importance of events. The discussion about the New European Treaty shows how ‘common European interest’ is defined differently at the national level and how much depends on the class of politicians and their political background.

The Polish attitude in EU negotiations is very often misjudged by other member states, due to a lack of understanding of the history of Poland and its political mentality. Fifty years of communist experiences are not simply eradicated by 17 years of democracy.

Despite all the appalling details to have emerged in today's press about the truly dreadful ‘honour killing’ of Banaz Mahmod, given yesterday’s guilty verdict of her father and uncle for arranging her murder, the true and horrendous significance of one aspect of her case, to my mind, has yet to have be adequately noted or commented on.

continued on the Centre for Social Cohesion blog.

At a recent Civitas seminar, in the London offices of the European Parliament, Syed Kamall MEP spoke robustly about the over-regulatory realities of the EU. Drawing from his experiences on several legislative committees he detailed a number of key areas where the European Project is going astray and then proposed a series of suggestions as to how this could be remedied. However, the discussion that followed resulted in a somewhat pessimistic conclusion as to whether these solutions could ever be realised. Below is a brief summary of some of the issues discussed. I leave the reader to decide if they can identify any signs for greater optimism…

The weekend papers had a number of contributions focused on the EU and the increasingly resurgent issue of its proposed Constitution. Charles Moore spent his Saturday wrestling with the trials of recycling (in his Telegraph article at least), as imagined up by both the architects of the new Landfill Directive and those of that soon-to-be-recycled Constitution. He did a thorough job of detailing the various means by which it will further strip sovereignty from member states without even consulting their electorates. The article can be found here.

A day later it was the turn of Ed Balls, writing in the Sunday Times, to do his own piece on recycling - denouncing the ‘outdated and sterile’ arguments of ‘anti-Europeans’. While he may have called for a ‘reframing of the British debate’, it seems he was less keen on reframing than on grasping an opportunity to repaint the EU-sceptics as misguidedly, and dangerously, nationalist.

Some time ago Tim Garton-Ash summed up Blair’s EU problems in two words ‘Rupert’ and ‘Murdoch’. Brown too will face these problems but with two additionally troublesome words, ‘Tony’ and ‘Blair’.

Much has been made in the media of the fact that Brown is essentially a domestic politician, has little inclination to engage himself unnecessarily with the politics of the Europe, and moreover that he enjoys running the UK economy too much to be willing to share it with the EU any further. This appears to be cause for optimism amongst EU-sceptics, but realistically Brown will be unable to just ‘dig in’ – the constitutional issue will not simply pass over-head and action WILL need to be taken, even if it not compelled by the actions of Blair at the EU summit on 22nd June.

I remember calling the LibDem’s office in Brussels a couple of months ago, asking for their education spokesperson in the European Parliament (or even an MEP with a particular interest in education) and being told there was no-one because ‘education is not an EU competence and is still the exclusive domain of member states’. This is true in the sense that the EU Commission has no independent power to propose law in this area; EU related policy on education is instead based on voluntary cooperation between the ministers of member states meeting in the European Council. Member states retain the right to veto any initiative passed in this forum and such initiatives are, at least technically, non-binding.

Yet there can be little doubt the EU is carving out a role for itself in education, coveted in particular by constant reference to teaching the ‘European Dimension’. These anomalies are typically tagged onto documents relating to the Lisbon Agenda (with its focus on lifelong learning and the like as part of the drive to make the EU ‘the most competitive economy in the world’) and various other EU-funded exchange and youth programmes. The EU budget for Education and Culture is now somewhat incredibly 1 221 270 895 euros. And then we have the Bologna Process, which has been discreetly usurped by the Commission, and subject to a damning report by the Commons Education Select Committee released yesterday.

All is not well in Romania. The country is currently in political turmoil, with the parliament’s move to suspend President Traian Basescu last Thursday by a vote of 322 to 108, and the impasse looks set to continue. But more concerning for the EU is that it is symptomatic of the Romania’s inability to proceed with reform along the lines set down in the final decision to admit the country – in particular that of tackling corruption.

On the very day I chose to slate the EU for inconsistencies between its ‘world leadership’ in distributing aid to developing countries, and policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and excessive tariffs that quite frankly screw the very same countries over, what does the EU go and do? Propose to: “remove all remaining quota and tariff limitations on access to the EU market for all African, Caribbean and Pacific regions including agricultural goods like beef, dairy, cereals and all fruit and vegetables [from 1 Jan 08]”. If it comes to fruition, this move should be applauded. Such tariffs currently cost the world’s poorest countries dearly, because it mitigates their ability to sell such produce at a cheaper price and, ultimately, make a decent living.

However, we should be guarded in our optimism...

A report published today by the OECD confirms the EU’s position as the biggest aid donor in the world. Combined, the EU-15 gave away €48 billion in overseas development aid (ODA), or 0.42 percent of their GDP, in 2006. This represents a massive 57% of world development aid. The report also highlights how there is a hefty discrepancy within this chunk between the most generous member states, for example Sweden (1.03%), Luxembourg (0.89%) and the Netherlands (0.81%), and the stingiest, Greece (0.16%), followed by Italy (0.20%) and Portugal (0.21%). Significantly, the latter are all behind their EU aid targets. Putting this aside though, just how effective is EU development aid?

Today – in fact at this very moment – the EU-ACP (African-Caribbean-Pacific) Joint Parliamentary Assembly convenes in Brussels for their biannual plenary meeting. Talking shop or not, the Assembly has acquired an increasingly prominent role, particularly given the tensions surrounding the EU’s intention to end its preferential trade arrangements with ACP countries in favour of bilateral Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The blurb on its website states: ‘A substantial part of the work of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly is directed towards promoting human rights and democracy and the common values of humanity….in order to guarantee the right of each people to choose its own development objectives and how to attain them.’ If so, then now, given the situation in Zimbabwe, is the time to prove it.

In a survey conducted last Thursday (8th March) at the annual Civitas Sixth Form Conference on the European Union, 68% of 16-18 year olds revealed that they would vote against ‘a Constitutional treaty that gives the EU legal personality’ (i.e. the power to make international agreements by itself, or on behalf of member states).

Significantly, 54% of students also responded that ‘the UK should stay in the EU, but push for a looser relationship, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation’, when asked which of the following statements came closest to their own view:

a. The UK should support further EU integration, giving more power to EU institutions. (19%)

b. The UK should stay in the EU and push for a looser relationship, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation. (54%)

c. The UK should support maintaining the status quo in the EU. (8%)

d. The UK should withdraw from the EU. (13%)

e. Don’t know. (6%)

By Will Thavenot

David Cameron is set to make a speech today outlining his vision for Europe, calling for Europe to focus on the ‘three-g’s’ – globalisation, global warming, and global poverty. He has also published a joint letter with the Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, saying that Europe should be underpinned on three basic principles: commitment to open markets, commitment to a Europe of strong nation states, and a strong Trans-Atlantic alliance.

Everything in these statements is about looking outward, with Europe as a representative body, in a wider global community. This is all well and good. Europe is undoubtedly stuck in a rut, from which it is finding it hard to extricate itself. The same problems just will not go away, such as member states unable to reach a consensus on the constitution, the issue of Turkey and enlargement, energy and the environment – to name but a few. Something needs to happen, one way or another, or the European Union is in danger of gradually grinding to a halt.

But is David Cameron’s vision the way forward? Is it even a feasible proposal, or is it just pie-in-the-sky rhetoric from someone who has proved himself to be masterful in manipulating his audience, but has yet to cut the mustard and back up his wonderful and ambitious dreams with hard hitting realistic action?

By Pete Quentin

At the heart of the EU debate (as with almost everything else in politics) is the question of identity. Which groups, or communities do individuals believe themselves to be members of? What is it that allies them to these groups and separates them from others? A major factor in determining the answer to these questions is historical experience, whether it be personal, communal or in this case national.

Regardless of where you are and whom you ask, if you quiz someone on their identity, they will NOT describe themselves as European – not even beyond the continent and certainly not in Brussels! They may be Portugese, Scottish, or even Cornish but they will not be European. Here lies the fundamental problem with the EU project - it requires the sacrifice of, above all else, national sovereignty. People make sacrifices and bear burdens for those things they identify with and they do not identify with the EU.

One of the biggest controversies surrounding immigration is that no one knows exactly how many immigrants from the enlarged EU enter the UK; let alone how many currently reside and how many are working.

A simple method of inquiry, that the government should have implemented years ago, is one universally familiar to club bouncers: counting people in and out at the doors. A system to count legal migrants as they enter via tunnel, sea or air would have required just a little extra work at passport checks and keeping track of passengers as they exited the country. Since there re no limits on entry or staying in the country, there would have been little incentive for immigrants from the Accession 8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) to enter the country illegally and hence a relatively good indicator of the numbers currently resident in the UK could be created. This, for one reason or another, has never been implemented.

One can easily agree with the premise of Timothy Garton Ash’s search for ‘the story Europe wants to tell’; namely that ‘Europe has lost the plot’. In an essay recently published in Prospect magazine Garton Ash states that ‘as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome…most Europeans have little idea where we’re coming from; far less do we share a vision of where we want to go’. Very true. And the vision he offers of focusing on shared goals – freedom, peace, law, prosperity, diversity and solidarity – is not necessarily a bad one; it’s just that he somehow assumes the current structure of the EU is the best way to go about achieving them.

by Pete Quentin

There has recently been a lot of (increasingly) confident talk amongst those who propose further integration of European defence. Javier Solana has been boasting of the EU’s military “successes” in Congo and Lebanon last year and talking up the “full operational capacity” of its new battle groups. Meanwhile the German presidency is expected to see further EU-led management of the international deployment in Lebanon and proposals for policing support of NATO in Afghanistan.

In fact the French General who commanded those troops in Congo is so pleased with the progress he has declared that “we finally have the beginnings of a European army”. Or do we?

The riposte of many of those who support the EU ideal to opinion polls which tell us, for example, that only 33% of UK citizens think the EU is ‘a good thing’ (Eurobarometer, May 06) is often to say something like, “well, they are just opinion polls”. They represent opinions, often based on tabloid Euro-scepticism, which tends to focus on the perverse effects of certain ridiculous regulations the EU produces; such as what constitutes a banana or requiring all produce be weighed in metric. Yet if people could perceive the constant undercurrent of positive impact the EU has, which is not widely reported, opinion polls would paint a very different picture. This runs with Blondel et al.’s argument that ‘more knowledge [of the EU] leads to more support’ (1998: 102). But does it?

This insightful comment was made by David Miliband MP in the Independent’s “You Ask The Questions” column yesterday:

Q. Please could we legislate that all items must have a "power off" switch? VANESSA OWEN, Orpington, Kent
ANS. The European Union is leading the way on this - one reason you cannot protect the environment if you are a Eurosceptic.

Ahem. Sorry, this is just a ridiculous jump in logic. In fact that’s being kind; there’s absolutely no logic in it at all.

An article in the Financial Times last week reported the former commercial director of the Department of Health, Ken Anderson, saying EU law will soon force the NHS to open up many more of its services to bids from private sector companies. His argument is basically that that the government’s policy of slowly introducing more competition into healthcare is “increasing the likelihood that NHS services may be subject to EU single market and competition rules”. Probably true. In which case could the EU, finally, be doing the UK a favour?

Nicolas Sarkozy really needs to get a grip when it comes to the European Union. What an insightful and populist policy to come out with in launching his presidential campaign: ‘I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union’. Yet on Sarkozy's grounds neither has France.

On Friday 5 January, a twenty-seven year old Muslim from Birmingham, Umran Javed, was found guilty of soliciting murder and stirring up racial hatred during the Danish cartoon protests in London. It is alleged that Javed led a 300-strong crowd of demonstrators in London, chanting such comments as “"Denmark, you will pay, with your blood, with your blood”, “Bomb, bomb Denmark".

”While this rare case appears to be justified – to a jury at the Old Bailey, – the policy of a modern government should maintain a view on the absolute liberty of opinion and public protest, since it is only in the rarest of cases –such as this - in which one has encroached upon the liberty of others –- should any intervention be sought by law or parliament, writes James McConalogue.

A British Prime Minister once claimed: “We take the same view in the United States and Britain that our first duty to freedom is to defend our own, and our second duty is to try somehow to enlarge the frontiers of freedom so that other nations might have the right to choose it.” That Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher, referring to the importance of the transatlantic alliance.

After 11th September 2001, the United States and Britain found the opportunity to rebuild the strength of the Anglo-American alliance once again. Tony Blair has attempted to pursue that path, yet in favouring EU-policy on a number of occasions, it is clear that Washington now feels snubbed writes James McConalogue.

New Year is a time for leaving the past behind, turning over a new leaf, making new beginnings and looking to the future. So too for the European Union, apparently.

Midnight on Sunday and the EU’s political elite were cheerfully (and grandly) “welcoming two new members into the family”, according to Jose Manuel Barroso, but behind the fireworks there is concern.

I remember, back in 1997, before the general election that brought to an end eighteen years of Tory rule how New Labour made such a fuss about the problem of ‘social exclusion’ among the young and how it boasted it would tackle youth unemployment by offering tem a ‘New Deal’.

Well, a decade on, and what do we find but that, according to a report in today’s Times, both the proportion and total number of young people officially unemployed is today greater than it was then?

Unemployment is particularly prevalent among 16 to 17 year olds, of whom as many as one in four are now unemployed.

Jan Zahradil, a Czech MEP, opened his keynote speech at the European Foundation’s conference in November with the statement: “we have a window of opportunity [to reform the EU] starting right now…[because] the paradigm of EU integration has run down”.

He presumed however that reform would have to be evolutionary, rather than ‘big-bang’. But 2007 could be a tumultuous year in the EU. It seems that wherever you turn at the moment there are huge contradictions and differences – if they are ever properly addressed, a crisis (and an opportunity for reform?) may well be looming.

David Cameron finally ended his impasse on that political nuisance called the European Union this week by challenging Jose Manuel Barosso and the EU’s leaders to end the prevalent ‘culture of hopelessness’ and confront its failings. In particular he attacked the EU on the CAP and development, fraud, its record on tackling carbon emissions and over-regulation. Tough-talking indeed. But, the question has to be asked: is it really possible?

The European Commission is due to launch plans tomorrow for a ‘new generation’ of free trade agreements with the fast-growing ASEAN countries, South Korea and India. It is being hailed as the epitome of Mandelson’s drive to ‘Lisbonise’ EU trade policy in line with the strategy paper ‘Global Europe: competing in the world’ (Oct 06), which called for the rejection of protectionism across the EU and for the EU to play an active role in opening up markets abroad.

One has, at least, got to credit him for trying. And trying fairly hard. The strategy is purposefully based on “more rigorous” calculation of the possible economic gains from such free trade deals; in the case of South Korea, for example, Mandelson’s office has calculated that there lies the opportunity to increase trade by 30 per cent. There is also little doubt that the Commission’s request for a mandate to negotiate these free trade deals has been presented ‘en masse’ to make it more difficult for member states to pick-and-choose individual countries or regions, thereby blocking the process.

Who knows, it might succeed. But the ‘Prince of Darkness’ will need all his cunning to negotiate through some of the more protectionist states in the EU camp.

Some rather dry research into where the EU fits into citizenship teaching, and on the current teaching resources available on the EU, revealed this conundrum that at least made me giggle:

QCA writes: “When deciding whether a resource is appropriate for post-16 citizenship, it is important to consider the following factors:….
2. Is the content up-to-date?”

There is then a related link on their KS4 citizenship page to ‘Schemes of Work’ (DfES), which aims to give a framework for teaching citizenship. “Unit 11: Europe – who decides?” includes the following number one “Point to note”:
“The European Union currently has 15 member states”.

Not that I’m aware of! Is the level of ignorance in the DfES really this high?! I’m sincerely hoping this hasn’t been proof-read.

On Monday 16 October, ministers from the EU’s 25 Member States agreed to provide €2bn a year in aid to developing countries to help them liberalise as per the terms of the ‘Economic Partnership Agreements’ (EPA). Dubbed ‘Aid for Trade’ by the EU Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, the money was supposed to be evidence that the new trade agreements are a development tool to help lift thousands out of poverty. A ‘stepping stone to sustainable development’ in the oracle’s words.

Today, the FT reports the following leaked letter from EU Commission officials Stefano Manservisi (head of the development directorate) and Karl Falkenburg (deputy head of trade) to the Fijian trade minister Kaliopate Tavole:

"In your draft EPA submission, detailed development co-operation provisions form an integral part of the text," the Commission officials write. "As you know, this is not acceptable to us."

Correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction here.

One thing should be made clear from the outset about the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which now looks set to be passed by the EP in December and enter into EU law. The directive does not seek to regulate ‘linear’ audiovisual content, such as video clips and animations in news and press websites, blogs, video podcasts, picture telephony and other ‘non-commercial’ content. And thank heavens it doesn’t. For one it would simply be impossible, and cost some ridiculous amount – perhaps even more than the colossus that is CAP! But more importantly, it would be an atrocious affront on freedom of speech and thought.

Anyway, this isn’t happening, but the latter point is still very relevant on what it does seek to cover. The directive extends the scope of the previous 1989 Directive (89/552/EEC) to include some commercial services on the internet providing ‘on-demand’ content – hence it being renamed the rather boring ‘Audiovisual Media Services Directive’ instead of the Bond-film ‘esc ‘Television without Frontiers’. What exactly counts as ‘on-demand’ content is more than a bit hazy. According to the Commission’s report this is defined as “a service as defined by Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty the principal purpose of which is the provision of moving pictures with or without sound, in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks”. Good, very clear. But yes, this would almost certainly include 18 Doughty Street. Conforming to the regulation in the Directive may not force this innovation to close, but it will inevitably have a cost.

And it is not just financial. The internet has been the one field that, as yet, has escaped the regulatory capture and atmosphere of political correctness that is plaguing debate is this country. There are disgusting aspects to it – child pornography is a case in point – and this is the proper subject of law. But not the internet media in general. The internet provides such a wealth of information on pretty much anything precisely because it is self-regulated. This should remain so, and not be meddled with by the EU of all institutions.

Incidentally, for those who are not convinced, it is interesting that the same Directive also seeks to reserve a quota of airtime for EU programmes, details rules of the content of television advertising and ensure free general access to events ‘of major importance to society’. This smacks of a similar grain of authoritarianism.

I guess we can only be grateful that whilst discussing ‘product placement’, the Commission is good enough to leave this decision to Member States. It also seeks to invoke a ‘country of origin’ principle, which makes national regulators responsible for broadcasters operating from within their borders. This perhaps leaves a glimmer of hope that Member State governments can find avenues to squirm out of the rest of it. But it is just a glimmer.

Education, and the educational materials used to teach, should be balanced. The 1996 Education Act states this, and most people would advocate this. At present the curriculum, concerning the EU, is fairly balanced – requiring, for example, that the structure of the EU be taught in citizenship lessons. Fine. Like it or lump it, the EU is very much a part of the political landscape and probably will be for some time to come. Given this, young people should know about it.

In this regard, Geoff Hoon’s idea that ‘lessons on the EU should be part of the school curriculum’ is fine. As is the idea behind the own-initiative report by Christopher Beazley (EPP-ED), adopted as a resolution by the European Parliament on 26 September. This wants all education systems in the EU to ensure that ‘by the end of their secondary education, students are properly prepared for their role as future EU citizens’. A part of this is ensuring students are taught about ‘the EU, its institutions, methods and practices’. One might take issue with the idea of an ‘EU citizen’, but again: fine, the EU has a huge impact on politics in this country and young people should know about it. It is extraordinary that many speakers who have spoken in schools as part of the Civitas programme testify to the fact so many students do not even knowing what the EU is.

But here is the crunch. Teaching of the EU should be balanced. Whatever the achievements of the EU, the picture is certainly not all rosy – far from it. This is where initiatives such as Hoon’s and Beazley’s come a-cropper. Hoon is of the opinion that, perhaps rightly, “there is a kind of grudging acceptance that we are members [of the EU] but without anyone understanding what it does or what it means”. But this does not lead to his conclusion that “children should be required to learn about its benefits”, without a single mention of its costs or pitfalls. Hoon mentions an FCO booklet on the EU is a guide; Beazley mentions a number of EU education portals in his report. But the majority of resources readily available to students and teachers are not balanced, but pro-EU, probably from the EU Commission, European Parliament or the government. They do not mention such things as, for example, Gunter Verheugen’s recent assertion that EU regulation is costing the EU c.E600bn p.a. Students are more than capable of drawing their own conclusions, but need balanced resources from which to do it – not pro-EU or, for that matter, EU-sceptic.

This is where EU Facts comes in: compiled by Civitas researchers in conjunction with an expert panel of teachers, and refereed by those on both sides of the EU debate, EU Facts is (as much as is possible) balanced. It is also comprehensive and easy to use: a series of over seventy single-page factsheets on different EU topics, which are in turn electronically cross-linked for easy navigation. The factsheets are also regularly updated to ensure that the information is current and is accompanied by supplementary resources and statistics for reference. It is available online at http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/index.php, and on CD.

This much needed resource is up-and-running; the aim must now be to promote it the best way possible. Any thoughts you have would be gratefully received.

Last Wednesday the European Parliament voted to extend the EU’s Youth in Action programme through 2007-13. This programme will eat up a budget of some €885 million, or €147.5m per year. It’s goal? “To encourage young people to work together to acquire new skills through non-formal education activities, for a common project, for the defence of cultures, for a future of prosperity, understanding and peace," according to Ján Figel, EU Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism. All sounds very complicated, and very nicey nicey.

But let’s consider two points for a minute. Even taken at face value, is €885 million worth of grandiose projects really the way to go about promoting what is essentially social cohesion and intercultural dialogue between young people? Almost certainly not; Civitas’ own research has shown time and time again that such initiatives are best run and coordinated at the local level, and certainly not by an organisation as bureaucratic and cumbersome as the EU.

Taking this aside though, is this ‘social cohesion’ really what ‘Youth in Action’ is all about? Again, almost certainly not. The Conservatives clearly don’t think so, having already dismissed the project as ‘propaganda’. In reality – as is alluded to several times in the Draft Report by German MEP Lissy Groner - the project exists, to a not insignificant extent, to foster the idea of belonging to the EU among young people.

A previous statement by the EU Commission on ‘Youth in Action’ states: “One of the main challenges facing the European Union remains how to bring the EU closer to its citizens and have them more involved in the development of Europe….the Commission believes it has a role to complementary role to play [through ‘Youth in Action’]”. For the EU itself, it has to be true that it needs to be closer to its citizens; it is an elite project. Nor should there be a strong objection to non-prejudicial dialogue and friendship between European nations and cultures. But this is not going to happen by the EU throwing money at projects such as this. I feel British, and even to some extent European, because I have an affinity to British and related culture and values, not because any government spends ridiculous sums of money trying to make me feel like I do.

The European Court of Auditors have, for the twelfth year running, refused to sign off EU accounts. The Court did, this time around, certify administration, development and some agricultural spending, but found errors elsewhere accounting for around two-thirds of the EU’s £70bn budget. Most significantly the Court found that the EU Commission still has inadequate mechanisms to ensure beneficiaries do not claim more than they have the right to claim. This of course lays the budget open to error, but also to fraud.

It is worth referring to the NAO’s report earlier this year on the EU’s accounts for 2004, which found evidence of fraud to the tone of £667m. This was a 12% increase on the previous year – despite the Commission’s insistence it was reforming its accounting procedures. One might therefore be sceptical of Siim Kallas’ counter-attack on the Court’s decision to refuse to sign off accounts this year. He claims the auditors are not playing fair, particularly given that three-quarters of the EU budget is spent by Member States, not the Commission, and ignore the fact that money mis-spent one year is often clawed back the next. For example, the Commission got back E2.17bn of mis-spent EU cash from Member States in 2005 and wrote off just E90bn. But while this clawing back may look good for the Commission, it comes directly from the domestic taxpayers pocket. Secondly where the Court has been most critical – in the 44% of agricultural spending not covered by IACS (Integrated Admin and Control System) and in structural measures (totalling about E56bn) – are precisely the areas the NAO reported as the most fraudulent.

The fact is EU accounts are so ridiculously complicated at least in part because the tide of regulation coming from the Commission is still unrelenting. For example, of the 22,000 pieces of legislation on the EU statute book, about 12,000 were introduced in the eight years between 1997-2005. It is unsurprising the EU is so vulnerable to fraud and dodgy accounting when beneficiaries have to wade through streams of complex rules and regulations to access the EU budget. Yet another reason why deregulation is so vital.

An enlightening publication released today by the Centre for European Reform (CER) heavily criticises the EU’s flailing attempts through the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) to advance democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. The ENP, through MEDA (for Mediterranean neighbours), offers greater integration into the EU’s single market and financial assistance in return for, amongst other things, political economic and legal reforms. Yet despite a budget of c.$1bn p.a. the report finds EU efforts to have been almost totally ineffective, and virtually silent on set-backs to the very things it is supposed to be offered in return for. There have been no EU communiqués on the slowing momentum of political reform in Jordan and Morocco, the EU only reluctantly offered fund to Lebanon after Syria left and the EU refuses to bat an eye-lid when moderate Islamist groups are cracked down upon.

There are two points to be made here. Firstly, the EU is distributing aid wrongly. Aid has been front-loaded and – much worse – in collusion with corrupt governments. The EU really should have learnt from fifty years of post-colonial aid that this strategy doesn’t work and will only serve to prop up the very undemocratic regimes it is attempting to reform. Aid should be offered to a State only in response to improvements and, where this isn’t forthcoming (and preferably anyway), to independent groups in civil society.

Secondly, if the EU really wants to make an impact it should deal in something the MEDA recipients really care about: trade and full access to the EU single market (a point touched upon, but probably not emphasised enough, by the CER paper). This is worth a whole lot more than one-off aid payments. Moreover, with access to a vast new market for its goods, enterprise should be encouraged, production diversified to more than just the State and with it increased demands for representation and reform. But this is the EU and free trade we are talking about, never mind.

Once again the talk of the moment in the EU is focused on enlargement. Romania and Bulgaria are now in, with the attendant issues that has generated; Croatia has challenged Barroso’s position that enlargement must halt until a resolution to the constitutional crisis had been found and now France is planning to pass a controversial law making denial of the alleged Armenian genocide a crime. Now there are many issues attendant with Turkish membership, just ask Nicholas Sarkozy who has said that Turkish membership “would be the end of Europe politically.” However there is a definite controversy over this latest French political manoeuvre. Even Olli Rehn, EU enlargement commissioner, has spoken out against it, saying

“The French law on the Armenian genocide is of course a matter for French lawmakers, but there is a lot at stake for the European Union as well, and the decision may have very serious consequences for EU-Turkey relations.”

The British government is widely reported to be as yet undecided whether to allow Bulgarian and Romanian nationals the right to work in the UK upon their countries joining the EU next year. Regardless of whether it does, come the accession of their countries to the EU, Bulgarians and Romanians will as citizens of the EU be able to enter Britain freely.

In anticipation of that day, it was reported last month in the Daily Telegraph that Romanians and Bulgarians have been busy queuing up to obtain passports to enable them to leave as soon as it arrives.

The British government was profoundly embarrassed by its gross underestimate of the numbers of East Europeans whose countries acceded to the EU in May 2004 who migrated to Britain to obtain jobs. They predicted only 13,000 would come. To date, at least 345,000 have.

Could it be to spare itself similar embarrassment of discovering correspondingly large numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians show up in Britain come accession day, irrespective of whether they have been granted the right to work here, that, as was reported in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, Britain is about to lift visa restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria in advance of their accession? The more allowed in prior to their accession the smaller will the head-line figure be of those arriving come that day.

Last Thursday a signature ceremony was held to celebrate the European parliament’s purchase of its own buildings in Strasbourg. The cost of the buildings? Just 136 million euros, of which approximately £10 million will come from British taxpayers held in escrow for such a noble purpose. Worth celebrating? On the plus side I guess 136 million euros is not bad as the cost of parliaments go, given that the Scottish one, for example, cost along the lines of £431m. Heh, we could buy a few more! At least then we could have a proper ‘travelling circus’; I’m sure MEPs must get incredibly bored of visiting just two parliaments.

As the clock continues to tick on the consultation phase of the EU’s ‘Strategic Energy Review’, which is due on January 10th, the debate continues over the degree of liberalisation that should occur within the European internal energy market. Two recent statements set out the continuing positions but also show a wavering on the part of the protectionist camp. In the red corner, Neelie Kroes, EU Competition Commissioner, spoke at an economic forum in Italy on September 2nd and made the Commission’s point very clear:

“Let’s not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the out-dated rhetoric of protectionism, artificially created national champions may have short-term appeal but this is often to the long-term detriment of European competitiveness and European consumers.”

“the result of a deliberate industrial policy that is approved by all parties, with due respect to the cultures of each enterprise and each country.”

Having been away for three weeks in the United States I have returned to find myself somewhat behind in developments within the EU, particularly in light of recent events in Sweden and Hungary. So in place of a full blog, I would like instead to point you in the direction of an excellent article in the Financial Times today on the issue of Turkish membership of the EU. Enjoy.

French presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy attempted to kick-start the EU from its period of ‘reflection’ last Friday by presenting a ‘mini-Treaty’ to solve its constitutional quandaries. The ‘mini-treaty’ would include ‘about two thirds’ of the flailing Constitution, including:

· the election of the Commission president by the European Parliament;
· creation of a European minister of foreign affairs;
· replacing unanimity by a "super qualified majority";
· reinforced cooperation, and;
· citizen initiatives.

But let us ignore the undoubted importance of what is in and what is out for just a minute. The point that everyone should be screaming about is M. Sarkozy’s insistence that national parliaments could decide on a slimmer version of the constitution without the need for fresh referenda. The reason he gives? That voters in France and Netherlands who voted the old constitution down would be satisfied to see the just two-thirds of it that he says should remain, because they were ‘not critical’ issues. It sounds astonishing arrogance doesn’t it? Perhaps we should be grateful that he at least said parliaments, rather than governments – there would be a chance of national debate.

Yet the future of something so far-reaching as the EU has become through removing large chunks of sovereignty from its member states (including of course the UK), should be put to its people directly. No British parliament in the present climate will be elected on its constituency members views on Europe. But the fact is no-one with influence in Brussels wants referenda, even on a ‘mini-treaty’ because they know they would probably lose. One of the biggest criticisms of the EU is that it has always an elite project run far from the ‘masses’; it seems M. Sarkozy wants it to remain that way.

By James Gubb

In a display of rhetorical prowess that would doubtless immediately qualify him for the award of an A-level in Logic should this subject be offered at that level, Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev has recently strung together an astonishing series of non sequiturs in support of his country and Romania being allowed to enter the EU next January on the same terms as were offered to the east European countries who joined in 2004, which include full and immediate rights for their nationals to enter and work in the UK.

First, he denies Bulgarians will come to Britain in large numbers. Its climate, he says, is far too cold for their tastes, as, he says, is shown by their having chosen to settle in southern Europe when they do migrate.

Second, he argues, unlike Poland, Bulgaria lacks close historic ties with the UK or any established ex-patriot community there to serve as an inducement for them to come in the way he claims such things have done in the case of Poles who have entered Britain to work since the accession of their country in 2004.

Finally, he contends, should the UK withhold the right to settle and work there from Bulgarians after their country joins the EU, then any shortfall in labour needs in the UK will be met by illegal immigrants from Africa and Asia, who, he points out, would pose a greater security risk for Britain than Bulgarians would.

The Bulgarian Prime Minister set out his case for his compatriots being allowed to settle and work in Britain on the same terms as the Poles and others were given in 2004 in an interview with the Times reported in its issue today.

Let us briefly consider its cogency.

First, if, as he says, Bulgarians wouldn’t come to the UK, despite being allowed to, because its climate’s too cold for them, then they won’t be disadvantaged should they be denied the right to come and work here. Moreover, that they have to date emigrated only to warm southern Europe countries does not show this is where they will chose to remain content to emigrate, should, in future, they become able to emigrate to colder but more affluent countries in the north.

Second, nationals from other east European countries besides Poland that entered the EU at the same time as it did, such as Slovakia, have come to work in the UK in very substantial numbers, despite their country not enjoying the same close historic links with Britain that Poland has long enjoyed. So, the absence of such links between Bulgaria and Britain cannot be thought of as necessarily serving as any psychological impediment to immigration by those standing to earn considerably higher wages, as Bulgarians would, if given the opportunity to work in Britain.

Finally, in view of Africa and Asia being even warmer than Bulgaria where temperatures in winter are reported to reach as low as minus 20C , it would seem that job-prospects in Britain must be more attractive to Africans and Asians than to Bulgarians, since they are apparently prepared to suffer steeper falls in temperature to gain them. So, if the Bulgarian Prime Minister is correct that low temperatures in a country inhibit migration to it, it follows Africans and Asians must want to work in Britain more strongly than do Bulgarians, from which it follows that they would be willing to accept lower wages than Bulgarians for the same work, or prepared to do jobs work at wages lower than those any Bulgarians would be willing to accept. Hence, Bulgarians becoming able to work in Britain after 1 January 2007 is unlikely to choke off demand for or the supply of illegal immigrants from Africa and Asia.

Of course, all this discussion about EU immigration to Britain is besides the point in many ways, as Sir Andrew Green has pointed out recently in an article that first appeared in the Daily Telegraph at the end of August under the title ‘EU Immigration is not the problem’. Such concern is deflecting attention from where the most acute immigration challenge Britain is currently facing lies. This is from legal immigration from non EU countries currently running at over a quarter of a million a year, a three-fold increase since 1997. As Sir Andrew explains in his article:

‘In the long run, this is a much more important issue [than immigration from EU countries]. Not only are immigrants from outside Europe more likely to stay on here, but also some are from distant cultures that find integration more difficult.’

The more legal immigrants from outside the EU allowed into Britain the easier does is become for illegal immigrants from these same countries to enter Britain and remain there undetected and unchallenged by the authorities.

Maybe, it would be better, on balance, for Britain, should a temporary freeze on immigration to Britain from future EU accession countries to give the country time to absorb and adjust to the levels of those who have already come. It would be far better and is even more urgently needed for there to be a more than temporary freeze on the number of immigrants from non-EU countries allowed to enter and settle in Britain.

One thing one has to say to say on behalf of the credit of the Bulgarian Prime Minister, he’s certainly got plenty of chutzpah, if little logical prowess!

Peter Mandelson, the embattled EU Trade Commissioner, has this week written in the East African defending the EU’s record on preferential trade agreements with developing countries. Specifically, he refutes the claim that the wonderful specimen that is the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is itself the problem. Not likely. Take, for example, Sir Digby Jones’ (Chairman of the CBI) comment that ‘the way to build lasting economic growth [in Africa] is for Europe to end the CAP’. And even Mr Blair agrees with him, putting the reduction of CAP at the forefront of the government’s so-called ‘Marshall Plan’ to Africa.

The reasoning is simple. The agricultural subsidies that make up CAP defend European producers from cheaper products outside the EU, by enabling them to sell their produce at lower prices than would otherwise be possible. Moreover the EU often makes the deal doubly difficult for developing nations by whacking tariffs on any produce from the outside. And the most criminal thing about it is that such a regime typically encourages over-production within the EU which is, more often than not, dumped on developing countries at cheap prices, destroying local producers and markets.

But CAP also tends to set the tone for EU protectionism as a whole. The EU will point to the fact that it currently gives notionally ‘duty free’ access under the ‘everything but arms’ scheme to goods from small developing countries. But this does not cover large low income countries that are equally as poor. And even for those that have been lucky enough to secure preferential trade regimes, such as Kenya, for whom at present 97% exports to the EU are entitled to duty free market access it is something of a fad. The regime comes to an end on December 31st 2007, upon which Kenya will have to migrate to the General Systems of Parity (GSP) trade regime where most agricultural products will face some import duty. This wholly contradicts Mandelson’s trump card: the EU’s ‘offer’ (French opposed of course) to eliminate all farm subsidies by 2013 at the Doha Round if others do the same.

A recent report by the Brussels-based think-tank, Centre for New Europe, estimated 6,600 people die every day in the developing world because of the trading rules of the EU, i.e. one person every thirteen seconds.

And that ignores the fact that CAP raises the cost of food even in the UK – part of the protected zone - for the average family of four in the UK by around £10 a week (against what would be paid for the same food on the open world market).

By James Gubb

It hasn’t taken long for the countries of ‘new Europe’, to use Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous phrase, to pick up the bad habits of their ‘older’ siblings in the EU. An article in this week’s Economist argues that the countries of central Europe that joined the EU in May 2004 have lost their reforming zeal and could therefore present problems for the future enlargement of the EU. At the same time, we hear that the EU is planning to push back the date for these countries to join the Schengen area. The Economist argues that western European governments are going to have a hard time convincing voters to allow in more member states like those of eastern Europe. Certainly new member states have a role to play in acquitting themselves better in their attempts to reform. But wouldn’t this be a bit easier if the EU didn’t drag its feet over providing the carrots that must accompany the reforming sticks.

The Schengen issue is particularly pertinent. If the integration of ‘new’ and ‘old’ Europe is a problem, then perhaps making it easier for people from different parts of the EU to meet each other could act as a solution. Sadly, there seems to be little will for this to happen in western Europe. But as long as new member states’ citizens are treated so blatantly as second class, then divides and resentment are only going to solidify.

Firstly, to allay the fears of both my long-suffering readers, this blog isn’t about Energy. It is, however, about Russia and why Europeans just don’t seem to be able to ‘get’ it when dealing with her on the international stage. In this particular case, a scan of news articles this morning led me to a story that Russian businesses were attempting to renege on a contract signed with American firms that Vladimir Putin himself pushed to be ratified. The contract in question: the RIHF-NHL transfer agreement for the Russian ice hockey phenom Evgeni Malkin.

Last week, the Financial Times ran an article telling us that the popularity of the European Union in the UK was on the rise – by nearly twenty percent! Of course, it is easy to get carried away when one is immersed in EU-sceptic arguments all day every day, but surely the EU hasn’t really been doing much to encourage the growing ardour of the Brits.

Firstly let me apologise for producing another blog on European energy. It’s the last one (probably…!) but energy policy is such a vital issue in European politics at the moment that its hard to ignore! Plus this was just too juicy a development to miss out on…

Oct – Dec 2005: Ukraine refuses to allow Russian gas monopoly Gazprom to gain a stake in the Ukrainian transit network in exchange for continuing below-market pricing of Ukrainian gas. Ukraine says however that market pricing must be slowly phased in and that whilst they will accept a rise, they are only prepared to pay £80/thousand cubic metres (CM) in 2006. Negotiations to find a common position fail.

Jan 2006: Ukraine rejects a final Russian offer – a political concession of a three-month moratorium on price hikes (which would also get them through the winter). In response, Gazprom raises the price to full European market value of $230/thousand cm – significantly higher than the rises charged to other former Soviet states. Ukraine still will not deal. Gazprom turns of the taps to the Ukraine but continues to pump European gas through the Ukrainian transit network. The Ukraine siphons off gas from this supply, stimulating shortages across the EU. They claim that this is gas that they have bought directly from Turkmenistan but Turkmenistan appears to have duplicated contracts and confirmed only a separate contract with Gazprom that accounts for their full annual import capacity.

The dispute was resolved with a deal amounting to the following annual gas balance:
· 41 Billion cubic metres (BCM) of Turkmen gas at $95/thousand cm. This gas is sold by Turkmenistan to Russia at $65/thousand cm at the border and Gazprom’s transit fees to RosUkrEnergo raise the price to approximately $95/ thousand cm
· 15 Bcm of Uzbek/Kazakh gas with rights to re-export in conjunction with Gazexport
· 17 Bcm of Russian gas at market value of $230/ thousand cm

For a change, some good news courtesy of a report in today’s Times:

By last night tendering their resignations from the Dutch coalition government, three ministers belonging to the tiny coalition partner in it, the strangely named D-66 party, have brought it down. Their resignations forced the Dutch prime minister to tender his resignation, thereby most likely precipitating early elections.

The three ministers resigned out of their wholly justified opposition to the continued presence within the government of its immigration minister Rita Verdonk who had quite understandably incurred their wrath last month, along with that of many others, by having summarily stripped the Dutch MP and fellow Liberal party-member Ayaan Hirsi Ali of her citizenship for having lied when applying for asylum from Somalia many years earlier to escape a forced marriage.

‘I hope we will honour the victims [of the London terror bombings last July], and look frankly at what can be done at the European level to give more coherence to the fight against terrorism and organised crime.’

So Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, is reported to have said according to a report in today’s Times.

Few will surely want to disagree with the sentiment expressed in the first half of his assertion.

Many, however, will want to question the suggestion contained in the second half of his assertion about how the memory of the victims of last year's London tube bombings may best be honoured.

David Rennie’s blog last Friday on the Telegraph website neatly encapsulates the tortuous dynamics of the current debate over reform of wine subsidies. Although French resistance to reform of the EU’s support to wine makers obviously reflects a wider economic problem of unwillingness to accept competition and open markets, it is clear that at root, the problem is a cultural one. Many in France (including the political elite) view themselves as a nation of producers – horny-handed sons of the soil, duly proud of their country’s long agricultural heritage – rather than as a nation of consumers, seeking out the greatest satisfaction in return for their Euros.

In reality, consumer life in France is much more similar to that in say the UK than this crude dichotomy suggests. Yet even amongst consumers, the desire to maintain a connection with the terroir is much stronger than for Britons. While the French happily chow down on ‘ le MacDo’ like the rest of us, a psychological imperative remains for life to be contained within the hexagon of their country. Hence the resistance to reforms that propose changing established French practices such as wine production.

In many ways this is an admirable wish, yet as Mr Rennie suggests, it is incompatible with life in the single market. What he doesn’t suggest, but maybe could, is that this divide might one day lead to a reassessment of the way that France relates to the rest of Europe, if the French people decide they would rather retain their idiosyncratic way of life than risk the cruel realities of globalisation.

Three excellent articles have recently appeared on the internet about the problems Europe is facing as a result of disastrous policies that various European governments have adopted, including the ever-growing supra-national one in Brussels, in response to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants to this region in recent years.

The first is by Flemming Rose entitled ‘Europe’s Politics of Victimology’ . In it, the culture editor of Jyllands Posten explains the motivation of his paper in publishing last September the notorious set of cartoons of the prophet Muhammed that were eventually to unleash such a storm of Muslim protest at them around the world.

‘By treating a Muslim figure the same way I would a Christian or Jewish icon’, explains Rose, he was -- rather than intending to insult Danish Muslims or the founder of their religion -- ‘sending an important message: You are not strangers, you are here to stay, and we accept you as an integrated part of our life. And we will satirize you too. It was an act of inclusion, not exclusion; an act of respect and recognition.’

By declining the invitation, the outraged Danish imams who stirred up Muslim protests at the cartoons were declining inclusion – other than on their own terms which were to make non-Muslims mountains come to Muhammed.

Energy continues to dominate the EU agenda and EUObserver has informed us that Javier Solana and the European Commission have recently drafted a strategy paper called “An external energy policy to serve Europe’s energy interests” which will be used as a discussion point for the European Council summit on 15-16 June. In light of the indecisive results of the EU-Russia summit in Sochi last month, which saw Russia still refusing to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty, it is no surprise that Russia appears (the text has not been released) to dominate the agenda. With this in mind it seems pertinent to take a quick look over two recent reported developments on the periphery of this tug-of-war and that should get a mention in Brussels next week: the EU special representative for the Caucasus intimating that the EU may get involved in future peacekeeping in Nagorno-Karabakh, on the Armeni-Azeri border, and the increasing closeness of Russo-Algerian relations that have led to media concerns of a possible OPEC-equivalent cartel forming to dominate trade in natural gas.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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!

It appears that Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has created a delightful (if concerning) example of political irony, the consequences of which could have been stolen from the script of the forthcoming movie version of "Dallas".

Three weeks ago the European Commission launched a swathe of legal proceedings aimed at loosening the sclerotic nature of the European internal energy market. Mr Johnson saw this as an opportunity to note Britain’s “sanguine” attitude towards foreign mergers and takeovers and warn of the risks that Europe would be left behind by globalisation if they did not mimic our position. Two weeks passed and Mr. Johnson was proven right. The threat that protectionism poses has been made explicit. On April 19th Alexei Miller, CEO of Russian energy monopoly Gazprom, emerged from a meeting with EU ambassadors and stated that: “Attempts to limit Gazprom’s activities in the European market and politicise questions of gas supply, which in fact are of an entirely economic nature, will not lead to good results.” The thinly veiled threat continued: “It should not be forgotten we are actively seeking new markets such as North America and China.”

As if this bald threat to Europe’s gas supply was not enough, yesterday, Semyon Vainshtok, President of Transneft, which is to oil pipelines what Gazprom is to natural gas, followed up with a proclamation that Russia should also cut oil supplies to an ‘overfed’ Europe. “We have overfed Europe with crude. And every single economic manual says that excessive supplies depress prices…as soon as we divert to China, South Korea, Australia and Japan it will immediately take away crude from our European colleagues.” The irony is that what provoked this belligerence from the Russians was, unfortunately, a Financial Times revelation that Alan Johnson and other ministers were briefed in February about the legality of blocking a rumoured takeover by Gazprom of Centrica, parent company of British Gas. Ah. So much for sanguine, however full marks for sense.

If I were to suggest at the next Civitas Christmas Party that we all play a round of the ingenious parlour game ‘Name Your Favourite EU Commissioner’, then my greatest difficulty would be in fielding the volley of bread rolls that would undoubtedly fly my way! There is not a lot about most of the current EU Commission to inspire admiration. Take the British Commissioner Peter Mandelson, example par excellence, who has refused to bang heads together in an attempt to reach a conclusion of the Doha round of WTO talks. Yet there is one figure amongst the current bunch who stands out as an example of how EU Commissioners should behave: the Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

It’s become a rather amusing cliché that France would always prefer revolution to reform but once again this seems to have been the case. Despite M. de Villepin’s courageous attempt to stand firm in the face of student riots, strikes and street violence across his nation, M. Chirac yesterday led the climb-down of his government over the contested CPE, or youth first employment contract.

Let’s be clear about what the CPE proposed to do. France has enormous employment problems. It suffered a burden of 9.6% national unemployment in 2005 as opposed to Britain’s just over 4%. Added to that is the problem of 42% long term unemployment where unemployed workers could not find a new job within 12 months – again double the percentage of the UK. These statistics become even more acute amongst youth workers. In September 2004, 21.7% of 15-24 year olds were unemployed, a figure which rises to an astonishing 40% in some regions and which is largely blamed for the riots at the end of last year. The CPE attempted to combat these figures and their crippling social effect by adding flexibility to France’s ‘one-job’ oriented labour laws and allowing employers to terminate the contract of 18-25 year olds without warning within the first two years of their employment. Although there are obvious dangers to the legislation, when you consider that a quarter of dismissals in France are contested in work tribunals lasting an average of 30 months, you can see the reasoning behind it as an incentive to encourage employers to hire youth workers.

Since it introduced them in 1998, the present Government has come to place ever increased reliance on Asbo’s in its unrelenting but still very much un-won war on crime and its causes.

How efficacious Asbo’s have been in this regard remains very much a matter of controversy, as does the government’s continued faith in them as a judicial instrument.

Even though it might not be showing any signs of having lost its ardour for them, the judiciary certainly is beginning to do so going by a decision in the court of appeal made on Tuesday of this week, reported in today’s Times.

Two high court judges rejected an appeal by the CPS against the dismissal last year by a District Judge of a charge against a boy then aged 15 that he had breached one of the terms of an Asbo he was under that, ironically, had originally been issued against him by that very same District Judge.

The paragraph in the boy’s Asbo of which the CPS claimed the boy to be in breach was one ordering him to refrain from acting ‘in an anti-social manner’.

Maybe I have a rather outdated image of what a nun gets up to, but I have to confess to being amazed as I watched Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ last night, to see Sister Barbara Raferty of Scoil Chriost Ri in Portloise, County Carlow, overseeing a budding arms brokerage business managed by her sixth form girls. Needless to say the good sister was not pursuing a lucrative way of repairing the Church roof, but was leading an exercise to demonstrate the continued loopholes in EU control of the arms trade. The message of the programme was that three years after the EU leaders reached a common position on arms brokering, it is still shockingly easy to trade lethal weapons and instruments of torture from within the European Union. For those who are sceptical of the worth of the Union, this programme provided pause for thought.

With those inspirational words, Goran Persson, the Prime Minister of Sweden, summed up the release of the new Energy Policy for Europe (EPE) that emerged from the Spring economic summit in Brussels last week. It’s appearance won’t come as a surprise to anyone – Energy has ruthlessly hijacked the EU agenda since the Ukrainian gas crisis in early January and the release of the Commission Green Paper at the beginning of the month signalled that a Common Energy Policy was on the immediate horizon.

So what does it mean? Well Prime Minister Persson’s summary seems to encapsulate the complexity of the energy issue and also hint towards the dangers inherent in the European response. The Green Paper was an ambitious document and recommended three EU objectives in the field of energy strategy: Sustainability, Competitiveness and Security of Supply. It covered environmental issues, the importance of a new energy mix and the questions of sovereignty that this created, the need to complete the internal gas and electricity markets, issues of solidarity in times of energy crisis, the relationship between energy policy and the Lisbon agenda and external relations in terms of energy supply.

For all the talk about the collapse of the EU Constitution (and in some quarters of its stealthy implementation) it is easy to forget that the work of the European Union is still going on in many areas. One of the potentially most fruitful and positive of these is the Lisbon strategy, that was launched with much fanfare in 2000 and later re-branded after it became apparent that the lofty but rather vague goals set down in the original document were not being implemented. We have now had five full years of the Lisbon strategy, a landmark that is being marked in various corners with a slew of analyses of exactly how well the project has done so far. While I would not put myself at the front of any (metaphorical) choir to sing the praises of the Lisbon strategy to date, some new research does shed light on why the way in which the programme now operates could provide a model for EU operation in general.

A. An EU Battlegroup

Okay so as a joke it’s not going to have your friends doubled up in the aisles, but it does have a certain ‘it’s funny because it’s true’ quality. Because that is the sum total of solid troop commitment that has emerged from the vaunted European Security and Defence Policy in response to the UN’s request for peacekeeping troops to support their operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo during the elections in June. Thirty Belgians and ten Austrians. And it’s worth mentioning that the Belgians can only act in a logistical capacity because of a clause in their constitution that prevents them carrying out combat operations in former colonies. So our ten valiant John Rambo-esque Austrians shall ensure that Democracy is secure in Western Africa, ably supported by three times their number in Flemish cooks and quartermasters. Let the continent breathe freely once more – the Europeans have arrived…

A funny thing has been going on in a far flung corner of the European Union and we should be taking note. The islanders of a small archipelago in the Gulf of Bothnia, off the south-west coast of Finland, are angry and they might be about to rock the European Union’s boat. The chain is called Åland and for those of you not familiar with Finnish geography, this is what the Columbia Encyclopaedia has to say about it:

Europe’s Commissioner for External Relations, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, made her first official visits to the South Caucusus states of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan on Thursday and Friday of last week. On this trip she made the comment, “2006 should be the year that takes our partnership up a gear”. And well she might, for without anyone really noticing (let’s be honest – how many of us were aware of the ongoing ‘frozen conflict’ in Nagorno-Karabakh) the Black Sea region is rapidly growing in prominence on the political radars of European nations and of the EU.

The key to this rise in awareness is energy. The Ukraine-Russia energy dispute that severely hampered European gas supplies at the beginning of the year sharpened awareness of Europe’s dependence on Russia for our energy. 25.2% of our total gas supply comes via the Ukraine. After Russia turned off the taps during the pricing dispute in January, Hungary and Poland saw a 40% drop in supply as the Ukrainians began to siphon off gas pipelined to Europe. Less than a month later, in what must be seen as suspicious circumstances, a transit pipeline in Georgia exploded. Moscow blamed terrorists. Tbilisi blamed Moscow.

As EU finance ministers meet today in Brussels to discuss the economic agenda for 2006, a very old argument about the role of the EU has once again been rumbling through both the continent’s cobbled streets and through the shiny glass and steel corridors of its Parliament. Over the weekend protestors and trade unionists marched in Strasbourg and Berlin against what they see as a grave threat to the social market model which remains so totemic across much of continental Europe. The current threat comes in the form of the EU Services Directive, a piece of EU legislation which has been grinding through interminable redrafting for the past five years. Its original aim was to provide greater freedom to service providers to sell their services with the same freedom across the EU. According to last weekend’s protestors, this would lead to ‘social dumping’ as service jobs in western European member states were undermined by cheap competition from the dreaded East. Sadly, it looks likely that these arguments may have won the day, with the current EU President, Wolfgang Schussel, expressing sympathy with the social dumping argument.

As outlined in Wil’s comments (in the previous blog) on the Prime Minister’s speech last week, Europe’s greatest need (sadly unrecognised by the British government) is greater democratic accountability within its structures and institutions. The people of Europe feel that the EU is beyond their control, a perspective supported in a Eurobarometer poll taken in July 2005 that showed that less than half of EU citizens were satisfied by the way democracy worked within the Union. This same poll, moving onto the issues of future EU enlargement, showed that over half of the EU citizens (52%) opposed Turkish accession. This in itself is a disturbing figure and one that doubtlessly would have increased – one would think – over the last week as Danish and Norwegian embassies are engulfed in flames, violent Islamic placards are paraded on Sloane Street and Catholic priests are shot dead in Ankara. The Union needs to listen to its citizens, but an argument can be made that those same citizens need to consider in more detail the question of Turkish accession to the European Union and the positive influence that it could bring not merely to Europe but also to the wider geopolitical stage.

The Prime Minster’s speech on the European Union at St Anthony’s College, Oxford, on 2 February was remarkable both for his willingness to recognise the need to radically alter the way we view the EU and his reluctance to acknowledge the best ways of reaching this goal. Mr Blair called for an ‘open Europe’ where ‘practical people’ would ‘work on… practical but radical steps’. The PM has come to the conclusion that the people of Europe have been turned off Europe by a political elite that spends too much time talking about the nature of EU political structures and too little time putting in place new policies to help them live their lives.

The EU is an entity not noted for encouraging competition, especially in the public sector.

But a ruling delivered by the European Court of Justice yesterday promises to inject into our ailing NHS more patient choice and competition than all the government’s current initiatives to promote them put together.

According to a report in today’s Times, the court found a 74 year old woman from Bedford entitled to reimbursement from her local Primary Health Care Trust to the tune of £4000 she paid for a hip replacement in France after it told her she must wait 12 months for the procedure at home.

Her lawyers argued this amounted to ‘undue delay’ since both French and British consultants whom she saw informed her that her condition warranted more urgent treatment.

When her Primary Care Trust refused to authorise her treatment abroad, she went ahead with the surgery there anyway, and then sought reimbursement from it.

Despite the Court’s decision yesterday, the case is by no means finally resolved. The Department of Health remains unwilling to accept the ruling, reportedly arguing that ‘if all NHS patients were guaranteed reimbursement when they sought treatment abroad it could undermine the NHS system of waiting lists.’

The Advocate-General of the European Court who delivered yesterday’s ruling was not convinced by the government’s argument and is reported to have said:

‘The fact that the NHS is an entirely public body, funded by the State and providing health care free at the point of delivery, is irrelevant for determining whether the situation falls within the scope of the Treaty’, permitting freedom of movement within the EU by citizens of its countries for receipt of all services.’

An interesting judgement, and one certain to give NHS managers much food for thought, as they settle down to enjoy the festive season. Should it bring on ulcers in them, they can at least comfort themselves with the thought speedier treatment than at home might now be freely available abroad!

As is reported in today's Times, differences of attitude among French voters towards the EU Constitution continue to stem from concerns they share that their country not become any more like Britain.

Supporters of the Constitution there claim that, only by its adoption, can their country be spared that evil fate. Its opponents there maintain that only by the Constitution being rejected can their country escape this fate.

When the turn comes for British voters to voice their opinions on the issue, doubtless their attitudes will be similarly governed by concerns they share about the effects the Constitution is likely to have in terms of making Britain more similar to France.

Unlike in the case of the French, however, British voters will part company with one another not over whether they believe its adoption likley to have this effect. For that it would do is something on which they will all surely agree.

Where British voters will part company with each other is over how they feel towards the prospect of Britain becoming more like France.

In Britain, the Constitution will be supported by those who fervently want Britain to become more similar to France. Opposition to it will come from those who look on this prospect with unmitigated horror.

One can only hope that, when the time comes for British voters to voice their opinion on this matter, they will be found not just in matters calling for political judgement, but also in those that involve an element of taste, that they can be relied on to display better sense than the French.

Despite the Labour Government being pledged to retain the British opt-out from the European Working-Time Directive, negotiated by John Major in 1993 when the Directive was first issued and which since has been invoked by as many as a third of British employees, as of yesterday it has ceased to be up to Her Majesty's Government whether British employees can continue for much longer to be able to escape the Directive by invoking the opt-out.

This is thanks to a vote taken yesterday by the European Parliament for Britain to lose the opt-out.

In itself, the vote does not settle the matter. However, the matter must now be referred to the Council of Ministers to decide by qualified majority voting, thereby removing the decision from the hands of the British Government.

Among the MEP’s t have voted for an end to the opt-out were all Britain’s Labour MEP’s. Their leader in Europe, Gary Titley, is reported in today’s Times as explaining that they voted as they did to ‘bring work-life balance to families in the UK’.

It seems to have escaped the notice of Mr Titley and his comrades that the Directive must inexorably raise labour costs, and that, hence, the only work-life balance that an end to the opt-out is likely to bring to many British families is an end to work with consequently precious little life to speak.

In January 2001, the EU decided to award 1.7 million Euros to Birzeit University. Situated in Nablus on the West Bank, the web-site of the University boasts it is the ‘first Arab university to be established in Palestine’.

The EU gave Birzeit University the money to ‘promote respect for human rights and the rule of law in Palestine and to reinforce Palestinian civil society institutions’.

Among the development objectives of the various University institutes and centres involved in the project, one, it states, is to ‘develop pluralistic ideals, democratic values and team sprit’.

A few years since the EU awarded the money to the university, the fruits of its investment are beginning to become visible.

One delectable piece of such EU-subsidised fruit that has been carefully cultivated at the West Bank university is a motion to be debated by the AUT at its annual three-day conference this year beginning today calling on members to boycott three Israeli universities.

Just over a week ago in The Business, Andrew Neil described the real significance of the proposed EU constitution for our ability to make our own laws.

While our Government is playing down the significance of the Constitution, the German minister for Europe, Hans Martin Bury, was declaring it to be ‘the birth certificate of the United States of Europe.’ Andrew Neil explains how Lord Justice Laws' ruling in the ‘metric martyr’s’ case puts in doubt the constitutional supremacy of EU law over our common law. Here is the full ruling from the Metric Martyr’s website.

The EU accounts for 49% of UK exports, which amounts to 19% of GDP, a declining share. Britain also invests twice as much in America as it does in Germany, France, and Italy combined.

For an update on the declining importance of EU trade to our economy check out this New Frontiers Foundation report.

Many among Europe’s intellectual and political elite are atheists and would welcome Europe becoming entirely secular.

Their attitude towards religion was recently well illustrated by the recent decision of the European Parliament to reject the entire team of Commissioners proposed by the incumbent President of the Commission than accept as one someone who had had the temerity publicly to espouse a religious doctrine he must share with literally millions of fellow-Europeans, be they Roman Catholic like him, or non-Catholic.

Another illustration of the same mind-set was the recent decision of Islington Education Authority to remove the word ‘Saint’ from the title of one of its previously Anglican schools, ostensibly to avoid offending adherents of any other faiths whose children might attend it, and despite opposition to its removal from local Jews and Muslims who would prefer the English to affirm their traditional faith, even if different from theirs, than lapse into unbelief.

A third illustration of this same mind-set was the decision by those responsible for drafting the new European Constitution to remove from it all reference to God or to Europe’s Christian heritage.

In a speech to the CBI Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner designate, said that EU red tape cost about 4% of GDP. It was partially offset by a 2% addition to GDP, which he attributed to the Single Market.

Having admitted that the EU is a drag on our economy, he then goes on to say that the solution is to give the European Commission even more power to sort things out! Nice try!

Nearly five years ago, European leaders held a summit at Lisbon to make Europe one of the world's most dynamic knowledge-based economies within ten years.

According to an article in The Times, a report by former Dutch prime minister, Wim Kok, has found that with only five years to go little has been achieved. Could the economic straitjacket imposed by the Euro be part of the problem?

At the end of last week, leaders of the 25 EU members signed the EU Constitution despite the strong opposition in many countries. Ten countries plan to hold a referendum in the next two years. Ours will probably not be held until 2006.

In the end, it's a matter of whether we can trust our politicians. Experience of the last referendum, in 1975, suggests that a pan-European elite has emerged comprising self-appointed intellectuals who feel a stronger loyalty to Brussels than to their own people. They have such a strong sense of their own righteousness that they feel entitled to mislead the electorate.

We have produced a facsimile of the Government leaflet produced for the 1975 referendum. It shows the extent to which we have been deceived.

Members of the European Parliament want to prevent Mr Rocco Buttiglione from becoming the EU Commissioner for Justice because he has said that homosexuality is a sin. As a Catholic he does think it is wrong, but he has confirmed that he has no intention of using his public office to criminalise homosexual conduct.

The mainstream liberal principle has been that the realm of law enforcement should be kept small in order to enlarge the realm of conscience. Christians, including Catholics, have long accepted that the law should not be used to enforce every moral precept they uphold. In matters such as sexual preference it is accepted that we should not resort to law, but rely instead on individual decisions made in the light of public discussion and the call of conscience. But for there to be a moral sphere we have to allow freedom of speech, so that we can all learn from one another through public debate.

The new brand of puritanism represented by the MEPs is profoundly illiberal. They are not defending free speech, but the suppression of it by demanding that people who disagree with their preferred opinions should be driven from public office. If they win, we will have come rather a long way from a ‘live and let live’ society. Moreover, does anyone imagine that if Mr Buttiglione were a Muslim, whose faith also regards homosexuality as sinful, the same demands to ban him from office would be made?

In an interview with Le Metro today French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin says, “for the first time, Europe has a shared Constitution. This pact is the point of no return. Europe is becoming an irreversible project, irrevocable after the ratification of this treaty”.

For some other revealing insights into the real motives of some of the European elite take a look at the Vote No campaign website.

A new poll carried out by ICM for the New Frontiers Foundation finds strong support for the idea of taking back power over trade, employment, and civil rights, and for creation of a new global trade and defence alliance. The full findings and an analysis are available at this link. It's well worth a look.

The majority of new laws are initiated by the European Union. Many are not even rubber-stamped by Parliament. When John Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in the 1680s to defend the emerging democratisation of this country, he laid down the four main characteristics of a free society. The fourth was that the legislature “cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.”

The people, he said, had given Parliament the power “only to make laws, and not to make legislators”. The government had no power to transfer their authority to make laws and place it in other hands. (From John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689, s. 141.)

Perhaps a few of our Parliamentarians should read Locke before they give away any more of our freedom to govern ourselves.