That New Treaty

As Witterings From Witney observes we were privileged this morning to have "a member of our real government give up his time to share his thoughts" as Barroso appeared on Andrew Marr (interview starts 44:13). As expected Marr gave him a rather easy ride, though he acknowledged that reform of the EU involved Treaty change.

But to Barroso’s credit, in stark contrast to our own politicians, he did not hide the real intent of the EU (the full transcript of his interview can be found here). Barroso made clear that Cameron’s wish to renegotiate the freedom of movement, was not possible as it infringes on the four fundamental freedoms (my emphasis throughout):

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
We have to make a clear distinction. One thing is freedom of movement, I don’t think it is possible to renegotiate. It’s a fundamental principle of the internal market. We have an internal market based on the freedom of movement- of goods, of services, of capital and of people -so the British people, British companies have unrestricted access to the internal market.

So I don’t ...

ANDREW MARR:
So that’s not up for grabs, okay.

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
I don’t think it’s possible…

Barroso then notes that reforming EU treaties is “very difficult”:

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
That’s what I think David Cameron is expecting. Now I have to be very honest. The reforms of the treaties are extremely difficult in the European Union because they require unanimity. So any point that Britain wants to make for a reform of the treaty requires the other twenty - seven countries …they are sovereign countries as well, to accept

Crucially though, while the rest of the UK media is remaining silent, Barroso offered up more substantial confirmation that a new Treaty is on its way:

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
I think sooner or later [deeper fiscal union] will be unavoidable to have reforms for deeper integration for the Euro area. And by the way it’s not only the pro-Europeans. The markets are demanding that, and in fact we have been moving in that direction in respect of the current treaty.

I cannot say a single European government ... but increased governance. Yes certainly because at the end - and we have learned this through the financial crisis - at the end the solidity, the credibility of a currency depends on the solidity of the institutional or political construction behind it.

ANDREW MARR:
Are you speaking for Europe or not in effect. But that kind of change would require a presumably a new treaty?

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
Yes...

ANDREW MARR:
It just seems to me that what David Cameron is saying he wants, which is a much looser European Union, is not what’s going to happen, and he’s going to be confronted with this deeper Europe.

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO:
What I think it’s important to have in mind is the following. I don’t see a fundamental contradiction between deepening the Euro area - that is certainly desirable - and having some flexibility for the European Union provided the general framework is kept as it is. For instance, we have already now countries that are the Euro, countries who are not in Euro. We have the Schengen where Britain is not a member and we have, for instance, some opt - outs for justice and home affairs. So it is possible, if there is wisdom on all sides and if it’s a constructive discussion, to come to some arrangement. 

Barroso lays it out clearly that a two tier EU is now on the cards - with no "fundamental contradiction". The EU is going for deeper integration leaving non-Euro members behind. In other words the "flexibility" will be the associate membership option of the new Treaty.

Warning...

...the EU does precisely what it says on the tin. 

Lord Wolfson warns European Union has become 'hungry for power'

I mean it's utterly shocking isn't it? It's amazing how suddenly everyone (well more accurately those in the media) is waking up to the fact the EU has covered up this “power grab” secret for almost like 55 years. Or gosh, perhaps they haven't...

"And I confirm, as announced last year, the intention to present, before the European elections, further ideas on the future of our Union and how best to consolidate and deepen the community method and community approach in the longer term. That way, they can be subject to a real European debate. They will set out the principles and orientations that are necessary for a true political union."

In terms of hiding stuff in plain sight this is ridiculous.

Someone Hates TBF

Rummaging around the internet (occasionally) I searched for the term Boiling Frog - as you do - this meant I stumbled upon this site.

The author, Tod Kelly, is really really angry about the Boiling Frog metaphor. No really he is...

I really, really hate this metaphor

He continues...

Can we collectively, as a society, take its amphibious body, throw it in a pot, and crank up the fire until it explodes?

Charming, I'm sure...

It’s constantly thrown into political discussions and presented as either a reasoned argument for action or evidence that proves a supposition, despite the fact that it is clearly neither.  Rather, the boiling frog is just a lazy excuse not to have to bother thinking critically about whatever ludicrously hyperbolic comment one can dream up.

But...but even worse he asserts the analogy is not even true...

And if that’s not enough reason to retire the metaphor, there’s also this: it isn’t actually true.  In fact, it’s literally the opposite of true.  As Professor Douglas Melton of Harvard Biology points out, “If you put a frog in boiling water, it won’t jump out. It will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot—they don’t sit still for you.”

As a rather warm frog myself it’s tempting to get angry at his lack of understanding and compassion for my current predicament, but one must consider that he doesn't live in the European Union so his experience is somewhat lacking. One must never get angry at a chap's lack of awareness, even if one is sitting in a saucepan of water being gently warmed up.

Instead I merely chuckled at his article, like EU Commissioner Barroso did when asked if Cameron could repatriate powers back for the UK.

Not that any of this bothers me of course; my blog title is not a reference to the metaphor it merely reflects the fact I'm an angry Frenchman who lives in the Sahara Desert.

Beyond Parody

Many of my readers will now probably be aware that the EU has been aware the Nobel Peace Prize, for...wait for it (drum roll)...[contributing] to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe".

That the award has been received with much derision speaks for itself - to paraphrase Mrs Thatcher - "you can't buck the facts". 

The Nobel Peace prize has long been discredited, but it may have surpassed itself this time, though worth noting that the decision by the five-member panel, is led by Jagland who is also Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. No conflict of interest there...oh no.

What is evident by this news though is the retreat into an ever decreasing circle of a self-congratulatory bonanza; Harrogate becomes ever more important - we need to realise our own power and pdq. And while Barroso offers a smug, beaming reaction to the news, he ought to be aware that Alfred Nobel's other legacy has a far more immediate, potent and effective outcome.

Still it could have been worse (or more hilarious); the EU could have been nominated for the Nobel Prize for Economics

The End?

I've always been reluctant to call time on the Euro, the capacity of the EU elite to do whatever is necessary to save the project should never be underestimated. However there does seem an air of acceptance of its fate and subsequently there's panic and posturing to pass the blame for its inevitable collapse.

China and the US are urging the EU leaders to sort the mess out, seemingly preparing to pass the buck to Europe for any fallout as a result of a Euro crash:

Reflecting the anger of Americans who are blaming Europe for the current economic turmoil, the President called for eurozone leaders to show global markets they are taking responsibility for the crisis.

Merkel is shifting the blame onto Greece for failing to get its house in order and EU Commission Barroso has waded into the mix:

European Commission (EC) President José Manuel Barroso left the door open for eurobonds on Wednesday, as he delivered a stark assessment of the eurozone described as “the most serious challenge of a generation”.

Barroso must know that, despite approving the current bail-out of Greece, the German Constitutional Court has specifically outlawed, in its recent judgement, eurobonds in the future as highlighted here:

While the German constitutional court may have approved bailouts last week, anyone who says this was good news for the eurozone did not read the fine print in that 29-page document.

That's the opinion of Wolfgang Munchau, a longtime FT editor who writes a weekly column on the affairs of the European Union.

In an editorial published yesterday, he points out that the constitutional court virtually ruled out permanent mechanisms like the European Stability Mechanism (the would-be successor to the EFSF) and the economic authority necessary to back up eurobonds because they would impinge upon the sovereignty of the German state. An expansion of the EFSF is only legal because it is temporary.

Panic and preparation for the blame game appears to be in full swing The end is clearly on the cards - it's all over, please get on with it.

Hang The Euro

Apologies but again due to real life getting in the way, blogging has been a bit slow round these parts.

Being busy though hasn't stopped me getting annoyed by the utterly irrelevant debate on reintroducing the death penalty - a campaign led by the self-proclaimed 'King of the Blogosphere' (Guido Fawkes), who is, by being less than forthcoming with the truth, a parody of the very medium he continuously professes to hate - the MSM. A tip Guido, the death penalty is forbidden as a result of our membership of the EU and Council of Europe via us signing up to Protocol 13.

Still, we'll have a couple of days of universal coverage of the 'passionate' debate, then probably a vote by MPs and...fuck all will change as the issue is decided by Europe.

Meanwhile... the Euro contagion spreads, rather than being a rumble in the distance you can tell it's serious this time - not only has the BBC led with the issue on its news bulletins but Barroso has been uncharacteristically blunt about the crisis. Previously the Euro has always managed to limp along regardless, but today's events look increasingly like a tipping point - panic is in the EU air.

Thank god the football season starts on Saturday to take my mind off things - though not sure it helps that my team's manager is Italian!

Barroso Thinks He's Been Elected

Nigel Farage rightly takes the EU to task for its proposals for direct taxation, however during his speech he prompted the ire from an indignant EU Commission President:

I usually do not intervene, but there is a point of order that I want to make. It is not the first time that Mr Farage, addressing to myself says ‘you have not been elected’. certainly I have not been elected by you, but I have been elected by this parliament. I have been elected in a secret vote by this parliament, and you belong to this parliament.” Barroso said,

“I consider it, always saying that myself or the Commission have not been elected is a lack of respect to the Commission and to the parliament to which you belong.”

I'm not sure what is more amusing about the interjection; that Barroso somehow thinks he's accountable to the people, or that telling off Mr Farage like a naughty school boy is going to make a blind bit of difference or that Barroso should be respected just because he said so. Arrogance is simply not a sufficient enough word to describe the likes of Barroso.

The toy throwing President can found towards end of the video here:



hattip: The Talking Clock

Democracy After Lisbon

Below is a relatively short speech by Professor Simon Hix, on democracy after the Lisbon Treaty, highlighting, according to him, both the positive and negative outcomes.

Despite being a Director of the Political Science and Political Economy Group at the LSE and the author of several books on the EU including; What's Wrong With the EU and How to Fix It, the speech is astonishingly naive.

Take this excerpt from near the end for example, regarding the re-election of Barroso in 2009 :

We didn't see a debate, we didn't see any candidates. Next time round I'm hoping that's not going to be the case because we won't have an incumbent, so there be no sort of deal between a sitting incumbent Commission President and the people he meets on a regular basis who are heads of Government. So you won't have this
pressure amongst the heads of government to support an incumbent. We are likely to see rival candidates for the position of Commission president.

I don't want there to be a direct election of the Commission president, all I want is rival candidates on the table...so we can actually look at what they stand for, what are you going to do for 5 years. Lets have a live debate in EU Parliament...let's have media coverage of their profiles on what they're going to do, so we can ask our political leaders who are you supporting for Commission President and why?

I remember when Bertie Ahern was Irish Prime Minister, Head of the Council when Barroso was chosen [in 2004], and he came to London to talk to Tony Blair and they came out of Number 10...journalists said; "Mr Blair, who are you supporting for Commission President?", He said; "I'm sorry but it's a subject of delicate intergovernmental negotiations".

I almost threw my shoe at the TV. How on earth can you say this? This person initiates legislation and affects our lives as European Citizens. How dare you tell us that you're not going to tell us who you're going to support?

Firstly there's the contradiction that not having an incumbent would hopefully mean more candidates and thus a lively debate, then Professor Hix goes onto reveal an anecdote where that didn't happen in 2004 despite Barroso not being an incumbent.

Then he doesn't believe that the Commission President should be directly elected but concedes that he (or she) initiates legislation and affects our lives as European Citizens. Right, so we shouldn't have any democratic control over the executive that governs our country? I see.

"How on earth can you say this?", Hix continues in frustration at Tony Blair's reluctance not to reveal who he would support.

Well here's a bit of a clue Professor. The candidates don't have a democratic lively discussion, because they don't have to. They're not accountable to us, you see? Do you think the Prime Ministers' debates in the UK were out of goodness of their heart? Of course not. Do think UK candidates traipse up and down constituencies for fun? Of course not, they do it because they have to in order to get elected, because they're accountable to the electorate.

Conversely the job of Commission President relies on support from behind-doors-horse-trading, i.e "delicate intergovernmental negotiations", so having an open, lively democratic debate in the full glare of the media is irrelevant.

Why do you expect any different?

The Continuing Adventures of Rompuy-Pumpy

Despite his rather funny name and Yoda-like features, Rompuy-Pumpy is not a man to be underestimated.

His initial appointment was greeted not only with howls of 'not-elected' but more significantly, with disappointment by those who are more pro-European; A lightweight, the dampest squib and a grotesque result were some of the observations.

But as EUReferendum rightly pointed out at the time:

Herman is a Machiavellian operator, a man who has no time for nationhood or democracy, a man who once had the locks on the doors of the Belgian Parliament changed to stop a vote on a key issue.

Despite the inauspicious start, Rompuy-Pumpy has been quietly going about his business; he is a federalist who has, since he took office, been making the case for more integration. For example pushing for direct EU green taxes, extolling 'global governance' in his acceptance speech, and in the Guardian last Sunday revealing plans to use the Lisbon Treaty to push for greater economic union in the EU this year (my emphasis):

The first is the full implementation of the [Lisbon] treaty...to make further progress in co-ordinating national economic policies to consolidate recovery; to contribute to enabling Europe to speak with a single, firm voice in the world, in defence of its values and interests; and to bring the union closer to and make it more useful for all of Europe's inhabitants.

Then, as the FT notes, yesterday Rompuy-Pumpy announced – ahead of the meeting, on 8th January in Madrid, with EU Commission President Barroso and Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, the current President of the Council of the EU – an unscheduled summit on economic policy on 11th February. There are normally four scheduled summits every year.

The rare, if not unprecedented, convening of this unscheduled EU summit and its date are the personal initiative of Rompuy-Pumpy, and it shows that he is beginning to lay claim to his territory and signaling his prerogatives. He is not going to have his calendar dictated by the Spanish EU Council Presidency.

Rompuy-Pumpy is certainly a man to keep a close eye on, Iain Duncan Smith once made an often derided comment; "do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man".

It was inappropriate for IDS but it certainly isn't for Rompuy.