Civitas Blog

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.