If You Want To Be Strictly Accurate...

An interesting phenomenon which becomes apparent when being an established blogger is the nature of the readership - it never fails to amaze who actually reads the bog. Despite being dismissed as "electronic version of pub gossip", bloggers can sometimes make a real difference.

With this in mind it's interesting that for the first time this blog has had readership from the European Parliament. Since my previous post was published yesterday on why a 2015 EU referendum cannot happen the hit rate from the EU Parliament has been very significant.

It's hard to pin down influence of course, but sometimes media reports which belatedly begin to write about very familiar themes in similar language can be difficult to explain away as mere coincidences.

An example would be in a piece in today's Telegraph; 11 things we've learned about Jeremy Clarkson. The piece relates to Top Gear's Stig delivering a petition to the BBC's London headquarters to call for the return of the show's host, Jeremy Clarkson, while being transported on this - pictured below:

The vehicle is virtually identical to the one which was used during a protest outside the UKIP Spring Conference in Margate back in February:

It was universally described as a tank, however as EUReferendum noted:

If one wonders just how naff the Daily Mail can become, one just needs to visit the headline of their piece on the Ukip spring conference in Margate. There, we are told, the Ukipites were "gatecrashed" by "NAZI dancing troupe goose-stepping through Margate in front of a Second World War tank".

Notwithstanding any other errors, the vehicle in question is not a tank – it is an Abbot FV433 self-propelled gun. And it is not of World War II vintage. It was actually introduced into British Army service in 1965. I remember it well as, about that time, I was nearly flattened by one when it came hurtling down a track on which we had pitched our tent (don't ask).

Therefore and rather interestingly half way down Telegraph piece today, we have this by the author of the piece Anita Singh, Arts and Entertainment Editor:

A man dressed as Top Gear's Stig has delivered the petition to the BBC's London headquarters in a tank (or self-propelled artillery, if you want to be strictly accurate).

This provokes two interesting observations. One that given the media as a whole have described it as tank, that Anita Singh acknowledges accurately it might be something else such as self-propelled artillery - of where there is only one source to report this - suggests strongly blogs are read.

The second is the dismissive tone of describing self-propelled artillery as "if you want to be strictly accurate". These are two completely different types of military vehicle.

To give an analogy, in the spirit of Clarkson and Top Gear, we could say that the car pictured below is obviously a Mercedes-AMG GT which has 4.0-litre V8 biturbo and produces 462hp. This allows it to achieve 0-60 mph in as little as 3.8 seconds.

But of course "if you want to be strictly accurate" we would note the picture is actually one of an Enzo Ferrari.

What a good example that is of a newspaper publicly acknowledging that "being strictly accurate" is an optional extra.

1 Down, 23 To Go

For all the celebrations last May from UKIP at 'winning' the European elections (on a very low turnout), and achieving an unprecedented 24 MEPs, those who had seen it all before were instead mentally marking up the odds of how many UKIP MEPs would be left by 2019.

Anticipation and history suggested strongly that the tally won't be good. UKIP's track record of keeping and maintaining MEPs is remarkably poor. To lose one or two maybe careless but to lose over half during the last Parliamentary session suggests a far more serious problem within the party.

And it's in this context we note that the Telegraph reports that UKIP MEP Bashir has defected to the Conservative Party:

One of the UK Independence Party’s most senior politicians has defected to the Conservatives in a major blow to Nigel Farage’s general election campaign.

Amjad Bashir, a Ukip MEP and the party’s leading Asian figure, told The Telegraph that Ukip had become a “party of ruthless self-interest” that was incapable of delivering a referendum on membership of the European Union. 

Interestingly the Mail also reports the defection with a different headline emphasising perhaps there was a different motive:

A senior Ukip MEP has defected to the Conservative Party as it emerged that he was suspended pending investigations into 'extremely serious financial and employment questions', the party said.

With two contrasting accounts for the defection it's naturally difficult to say for certain which report would be the most accurate. However given that the Mail's 'breaking news' piece had a link to the Telegraph website (which it very rarely does and is now removed) would indicate that Telegraph were planning this for a Sunday scoop. Thus all the signs suggest that having got wind of the defection the Mail has been briefed as a spoiler from sources close to Farage.

Whatever the true reasons though we can only agree with much of Bashir's analysis of UKIP:

In a damning broadside against his former colleagues, he described Ukip as “pretty amateur” and condemned its “ridiculous” lack of policies. He said the party was “delusional” about its chances of winning seats in May.

The lack of UKIP policies has long been issue and has led to defections before. Yet to point this out, even as rather gentle constructive criticism, invited much ridicule.

But the facts are clear, UKIP participated in the European Elections with no manifesto, and despite reassurances to its supporters by Farage leader that there would be a fully costed one by the 2015 general election we see little sign of one. Even here its deja vu all over again:

Ukip's policy chief has quit just six weeks ahead of the party's manifesto launch in February.

Thus UKIP candidates are being thrown into an election campaign with no party policies; a betrayal of those who have to campaign on doorsteps and in hustings meetings. No wonder many of them (maybe in frustration) are in absence sending out to the electorate the 2010 version which was dismissed by Farage as drivel.

So with a general election impending UKIP's catalogue of bad press is increasing substantially. Much of it self-inflicted is now entering its third month and shows no sign of letting up. It's clear there UKIP has significant problems which particularly suggests a deep dissatisfaction with the leadership.

Any idea that UKIP will hold the balance of power or even help the eurosceptic cause secure a referendum is looking wildly over-optimistic.

Brussels: The European Quarter

During my otherwise very enjoyable stay in Brussels, I did at one point venture over to the European Quarter where most of the EU institutions are located.

Despite a visceral dislike of the EU, or more accurately the UK's membership of it, I felt it important to see for myself what the European Quarter looked like - a lot can be garnered about any institution just from observing its buildings.

Therefore what follows in this piece is a 'day-tripper's' first impressions and initial observations without any particular direct intimate knowledge of the buildings themselves. Naturally given the standpoint of this blog the following views won't be without any bias but I'll try to make it as fair as possible.

Nevertheless I suspect that it will come as no surprise that I will begin this piece by first making a criticism of the European Quarter -  particularly the EU Parliament. However it is a criticism which I wasn't expecting to make.

Given the historic nature of the centre of Brussels with its cobbled streets, there was an expectation of difficulty of disability access, yet what came as a surprise is that this difficulty extended itself to the European Quarter - a much more modern construction. In short disability access around and near EU buildings is an absolute shocker.

To give but one example, here's a picture of a road crossing within the confines of the EU Parliament (and we found no exception to this example around the EU Parliament):

As can be clearly seen there are no dropped kerbs (or certainly not ones that are level with the road) which made wheelchair access when crossing a road much more difficult; those with a keener eye will notice there is also an absence of 'tactile paving' for the blind or visually impaired. Nor did any crossing with lights indicate with a noise when it was safe to cross. Thus basically if someone has sight disabilities near the EU Parliament (and other EU institutions) they can expect to be run over.

We did discover one 'dropped kerb' near the EU Parliament which 'helpfully' wasn't actually near a designated crossing. Rather than be a gentle slope as is normal in the UK as shown below...

 ...it instead was a sharp 45 degree sudden drop; difficult enough to navigate with a wheelchair with anti-tilt mechanisms even more so we suspect with an electric wheelchair which has a longer wheel-base which would become somewhat stuck.

Another feature of the European Quarter is that it is not flat - there are significant gradients to navigate between the EU Parliament and other EU institutions nearby which surround the Schuman Roundabout. The EU Parliament in particular appears to be built on two levels as a result of it being rather 'hilly'. An example is shown below:

On the left is the Paul-Henri Spaak part of the Parliament which houses the hemicycle for plenary sessions and on the right is the Altiero Spinelli building(s) which as can be seen is connected by a two-floor pedestrian bridge.

A problem arises though for someone not inside the building. Entering via the pedestrian access through the Altiero Spinelli building(s) - which makes up the front of the EU Parliament - to the Henri Spaak part which forms the 'chamber tour' involves a great number of steps (clearly seen on the right). And it is via these numerous steep steps that the (visit EP) signs indicate the way to go to the chamber tour

At no point is disability access clearly marked or catered for to easily navigate between the two. Instead through 'trial and error' we found the only way round was to take a path involving a very steep slope which went well outside the 'footprint' of the EU Parliament. To add insult to injury the entrance to the chamber tour involved wheelchair unfriendly cobbles.

And by no means was this confined to the EU Parliament. Access outside other EU buildings was equally poor and, despite a genuine emergency, showing the following MS card (below) which in a number of languages advises that Mrs TBF occasionally needs toilet access urgently, the officials in the Berlaymont building (EU Commission) informed us in no uncertain terms that they had "no disabled toilets" which she could use.

To put these difficulties into context, the EU likes to promote itself as a defender of disability rights - as promoted here (in typical EU speak):

The European Union policy on disability is built on an explicit commitment to the social model of disability.

The EU perceives disability as the result of the dynamic interaction between a person and their environment, including social constructions, which lead to discrimination and stigmatisation.  It is therefore the environment that should be adapted to each individual person, including people with disabilities, by removing these barriers.

Disability is a right-based issue, discrimination should be eliminated.  Disability policies should follow a socially inclusive and individualised approach: rights have to be supplemented by actions, which provide access to rights, that is to say with equal opportunities...

The legal basis for EU action in this area is provided by Article 13 of the European Treaty, dating from 1999, which permits the European Council to ‘take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation’. It has been expressed in a variety of forms, such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It would be nice if they actually applied those same principles to themselves. It can be safely said that in terms of disability access in public buildings and public highways the UK is miles ahead of the European Quarter.

Those criticisms aside, onto more general observations. We began 'our tour' at the EU Parliament. Pictures cannot do justice on how big this complex is. The building, or should we say buildings, is bloody massive and it's difficult to know sometimes where the Parliament complex actually ends given the number of 'linked' buildings.

The size though is about the only impressive thing about it; a mixture of concrete and glass it is grey and soulless. Perhaps then the perfect metaphor for the Parliament itself - a gargantuan and very expensive monument to powerlessness (and we must remember this is only one of the EU parliament buildings - there's one in Strasbourg and it has substantial administrative offices in Luxembourg). As an example here are a selection of pictures which show the front entrance:

Running in front of the entrance, along the entire length of the complex is a wide long pedestrian walkway which seems to serve little purpose other than to provide access to the EU Parliament's own train station seen here:

Below are a number of pictures to give an idea of the scale of the walkway (all buildings shown are part of the Parliament):

Dotted along this walkway are numerous plaques dedicated to those people significant in EU history, with one or two references to Auschwitz. Also strangely there is a tribute to the Solidarity movement in Poland. Quite why this was on an EU building I'm not sure, even the EU plaque made no mention of itself. Along this walkway is a visitor's centre where "dynamic, interactive multimedia displays" informs us of how great the EU is. For very obvious reasons I gave it a miss.

Now we moved through the Altiero Spinelli sector and across the road which separates it from the Paul-Henri Spaak part which houses the chamber. Part of the back of the Spinelli building (and only part) can be seen below:

And the Paul-Henri Spaak building as seen here which has more than a passing reference to aspects of the Crystal Palace:

We were unable to take part in a Chamber Tour visit as for reasons unknown it was closed on the day we went. It's worth noting that via its website that tours are limited anyway to just twice a day - 10am & 3pm. A stark contrast to our own Parliament where generally visitors can turn up anytime to visit the public gallery or lobby their MP. Even greater freedom can be found in the Capitol building in Washington where, after passing the usual security checks, you are at liberty to wander about almost where you like.

That said, the EU Parliament is model of openness compared to other EU buildings where visitors (taxpayers) were most certainly not welcome. And it's here we move on to next. I'm not sure if it's deliberate but it's symbolic that the majority of EU institutions (the important and powerful ones) are clustered around the Schuman Roundabout around a 15-20 minute walk away - the Parliament is out on its own...almost on a limb.

Next up was the Berlaymont (or Berlaymonster to its friends) home of the EU Commission:

Note the lack of English; it's worth pointing out that many EU buildings have notices and plaques in just two languages - three if they include English which is always third on the list. The first language is invariably French revealing the true soul and origins of the EU.

Well what can one say about the Berlaymont other than it looks like a glorified office block on stilts. If ever a building epitomised Monnet's vision of an "organised world of tomorrow" run by anonymous unelected civil servants this is it. No grand entrance, little information for visitors and no fuss, just a large functional dull grey building with lots and lots of windows by undoubtedly lots and lots of desks:

One interesting observation though (probably a slightly mischievous one) is when the BBC do (occasionally) report on the EU they do so with the Berlaymont as a backdrop but with the only side which has copious numbers of flagpoles with EU flags as below:

Perhaps the BBC do this for aesthetic reasons or if we're to be very cynical for bias reasons due to the number of EU flags they can achieve in a camera shot. However directly opposite is a British themed pub called "The Old Hack Pub":

A coincidence I'm sure. Opposite this pub (to the right) and opposite the Berlaymont is another EU Commission building - Charlemagne, another glorified office block...

...with what I guess is supposed to be an interesting design feature:

Directly opposite the front of the Berlaymont (well I think it's the front, it's hard to tell), and across the main road, is the Council of the European Union (Ministers) the Justus Lipsius building:

And this I guess is the front entrance, not much to write home about and again not very welcoming for visitors (taxpayers):

Like the EU Parliament this is another very large complex, one that is a little more deceptive in its size as became evident when we tried walking around it - it takes a considerable amount of time. Below is a picture of another (small) part:

Next door to the Justus Lipsius building is the Residence Palace which serves as the home of the European Council and Van Rompuy which is currently undergoing construction (as is much of the European Quarter):

What is not readily apparent from the pictures nor from street view until very close up is the inside of the Residence Palace is taking shape to look rather like this below:

I'm sure readers will take great comfort in the fact that it will be eco-friendly. At this point we were running out of time, so these are my thoughts on the most 'important' buildings. There are plenty of other EU buildings around the Schuman Roundabout to visit including this one rather ironically...

Whatever the EU says about promoting democracy and freedom, nothing can disguise its true nature when visiting the very buildings it resides in. Secret, elitist, grey, soulless and a complete disregard of people's money with no attempt to disguise it. All of the buildings ooze grotesque opulence albeit with no class. They are the ultimate tribute to a fundamentally unelected bureaucratic organisation - Jean Monnet would have been proud.

I would fully recommended that any eurosceptic should visit the European Quarter to truly appreciate what we're up against.

With that in mind I'll leave the final word to Mrs TBF. She has long been tolerant of my EU obsessions, but visiting last week she became extremely animated by what she saw all around her; at last she understood:

"I resent my money being spent to build a load of crap like this."

Quite...

Cameron Tries To Block UKIP Funding

Mary Ellon Synon reports that "Cameron is trying to sabotage UKIP’s influence at the European Parliament, just days after trying to appear sympathetic to euroscepticism by telling the British people that their message at the polls was “received and understood.”

Instead of accepting UKIP's victory, Cameron has started a drive to cut off the legs of “the people’s army” in Brussels and Strasbourg. He has assigned Conservative Party fixers to do deals with hard-right and populist parties which, until now, the Conservatives claimed were “unacceptable.”

Conservative moves which have the full support of 'Judas Goat' Hannan:

Last week Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan was in Denmark telling Copenhagen television that the Danish People’s Party (DPP), which sat with UKIP’s group in the outgoing parliament, would now be welcome to join in the Tories’ Europe group at the European parliament.

But in 2009, Conservatives rejected an approach from the DPP to join their group, “because of their unacceptable views in a number of areas.” Thus far from listening to the British people we have yet another example - which undoubtedly comes as a large shock to everyone - of the complete contempt held by those in Westminster have of UK voters. Farage has it right when he says:

There is a big dissident voice now in this parliament. And yet, I just sat in a meeting where you wouldn’t think that anything happened at all.

It does though neatly illustrate a number of intriguing observations. That the EU Parliament is used by UK parties (and other countries) to try to manipulate domestic audiences politically. Cameron is willing to align himself with "undesirables" in order to try to shore up his election chances at home - by depriving UKIP of money - regardless of reputations. He accurately calculates that most in the UK couldn't care less about the EU Parliament and how it works.

It also demonstrates that the very understandable desire to give the main three parties a "kicking" in the Euro elections by UK voters is one that has been shown to be largely impotent, a sentiment that is echoed by Farage himself.

The EU Parliament via groupings and the use of money ensures that it is just another EU institution whose primary function is to facilitate the further progress of the supranational project rather than be an independent "check and balance" on the executive or other bodies:

For example, in the 2012 budget, UKIP and the MEPs from ten other countries in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, had an allocation of more than €2.5m, with €881,000 still in the bank carried over from the previous year’s grant. This was on top of all the expenses individual MEPs were given to run their offices, research and travel.

By contrast, the giant pro-EU powers European People’s Party (EPP)...was allocated €21m.

Is it little wonder that the EU are so lax about expenses allowances; there is nothing better than easy money to turn people "native". Then there's the European Court of Justice, who rather than be an independent judiciary has instead the primary role of extending and reinforcing the supranational authority of the EU Commission, its "coup d'etat" was this judgement from 1964 :

It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question.

The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community ... Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail.

Obviously it's clear that UK exit is not going to materialise from Brussels or MEPs contained within nor indeed many members of Westminster. Our exit is likely to come via a referendum and to win that requires negating many of the lies, deception and FUD that has characterised over 40 years of membership. To do that requires a proper, well thought-out exit plan:

It's interesting that despite Cameron's continuing deception on the EU, in terms of how it works regarding treaties he appears to be pretty naive - in fact he's made a substantial strategical cock-up.

Cameron gave a promise of a referendum in 2017 after claiming that he would negotiate reforms with the EU. As has been well noted on many occasions such reforms cannot be done without approval of other member states nor without Treaty change nor within the time frame.

Cameron then said on Andrew Marr that a referendum would be held anyway in 2017:



Essentially this means that any referendum in 2017 won't be based on a fudged reform (because there isn't time) but instead it will be a straight in/out. Here we have a fighting chance. But it is only one chance and one chance only. To win needs co-operation and planning among eurosceptic groups to ensure victory. Without that we lose.

Rather like Neil Armstrong et al going to the moon, they either got it right or they died. There were no second chances.

Not Voting

For some today there are local council elections but in the words of the 'unbiased' BBC the "big one" across the country is the EU elections:

"There are local council elections in England and Northern Ireland - but the big one this year is the European election on the same day."

I've noted before that I have always been a reluctant participant in any EU elections. To do so is to legitimise a system I completely and fundamentally disagree with. The EU would actually rather have copious numbers of UKIP MEPs in the EU Parliament on the back of high participation than a low turnout altogether. A high turnout would act as a comforting safety valve for the EU - it means citizens are participating. A sentiment which can be seen by the reaction from 2004 after a low turnout (my emphasis):

"A wake-up call" is the way the current President of the European Parliament Pat Cox described this week's [EU Parliament] election results; the Dutch used the word "disaster".

But working out what went wrong is now crucial to working out how to put it right.

Officials labelled the turnout "pathetically low" in the new states, as ministers warned the political credibility of the whole EU was now at stake.

The election simply left most voters cold from Portugal to Poland. Where they did vote, most people chose to punish their governments or to promote Eurosceptic parties.

Certainly the elections were a shock for the political elite across Europe in the wake of the recent enlargement which they thought would provide renewed vitality for the European project.

With this in mind I have decided not to vote today. Previously I have done in Euro elections for UKIP and I did so through very gritted teeth (no reflection on UKIP at the time) for pragmatic reasons. I took the view that in order for UKIP to break through into the UK Parliamentary system the EU elections gave an opportunity for much publicity and funding to make a difference domestically against an unfair system.

As a result, despite UKIP's many failings, its current position in terms of dominating the media is somewhat of an achievement. It's worth noting that hardly any party in UK history has managed to break through the stranglehold that a two party system entails. One rare but obvious example is the rise of Labour in the late 19th Century.

However I've come to the conclusion that UKIP's rise is less a reflection of the party's competence more of an example of a 'canary down the mine' regarding our electoral system. Less of a solution and more of a warning of what's to come. A warning that came via the paper in 1971 named FCO 30/1048:

...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.

Despite EU funds, the potential opportunity of UKIP finally "breaking through" properly has been squandered and it has been squandered for years. The significant funding has not resulted in a UKIP research department, a decent UKIP website and a coherent unified policy on how to exit.

Such a vacuous intellectual void leads to confusion and argument among UKIP supporters, acutely demonstrated by Suzanne Evans when interviewed by Andrew Neil. As Complete Bastard notes one UKIP activist even argued:

"Personally, I think it would be an alienating and self-indulgent mistake for UKIP to waste its limited resources on the withdrawal mechanism at this time."

Limited resources? I'm not sure Farage struggles with 'limited' resources that prevent a policy on how to exit. And of course seventeen unpaid volunteers (helped by many others) produced exit plans within four months for the IEA prize - UKIP has been going for twenty years and has still failed to produce one. What a pathetic excuse.

Given then UKIP are failing to provide policy on exiting the EU, we have to consider then what is the point of voting in Euro elections. "People died for your right to vote" is sometimes the cry. Yet the right to vote and democracy are not the same thing. It's not a right to mark a piece of paper that counts but what that mark can achieve. The crucial question is always can we throw out the executive?

In terms of the Euro elections we can't  - the executive is with the EU Commission whose Presidential elections are being held with no real reference to the "citizens" of Europe. As an example of ballot paper impotency, the people of North Korea have the right to vote via a piece of paper regarding elections to the People's Supreme Assembly, but no-one in their right mind would argue that makes FatBoy-Kim democratically accountable.

As Richard North observes regarding the Euro elections:

Certainly, there is nothing "democratic" about Mr Cameron's "top table", the Council of Ministers. There, when a vote is called, qualified majority voting (QMV) applies. Britain has 29 votes out of 352, representing eight percent of the vote. A qualified majority is 252 votes (73.9 percent), leaving Britain with a structural deficit of 223 votes.

However, in the European Parliament, the situation is little better. There are 73 UK MEPs, and these represent a mere 9.7 percent of the 751 elected MEPs (post-2014 election). Given the party splits, this level of representation is notional. UK MEPs rarely vote together as a single bloc. Even if they did, they could never muster the 376 votes needed for a majority.

Furthermore, the powers of the Parliament and the Council are limited in important but poorly recognised ways. As an increasing number of laws come into being via international standards, these are most often implemented by the EU as delegated legislation (Commission Regulations) using the comitology procedure.

Every year, more than 2,500 measures are processed via this route, passing through one or more of the 200-300 committees set up for the purpose. That is approximately 30 times more measures than are processed via the mainstream ordinary legislative procedure.

The impotence of the EU Parliament could not be better expressed than by the fact that if every one of the 73 MEPs elected from the UK were UKIP candidates, they simply could not execute their manifesto on behalf of their voters and remove the UK from the EU.

That point brings me neatly on UKIP's exit policy. Aside from having no plan, we see from Autonomous Mind that UKIP intends to remain de facto members of the EU:

...An article today in the Financial News (£) might just explain why there is no exit plan for leaving the EU… UKIP is apparently developing a carefully crafted secret weapon that would see the UK stay inside the Customs Union!  Not inside the internal market, but inside the Customs Union and negotiating its own trade agreements:

As can be clearly seen from this Wikipedia page Turkey's 'customs union' is EU membership by default. I have tweeted and emailed Tim Aker (supposedly head of UKIP's policy) to clarify the party's position to as yet no response.

With UKIP failing to exploit their position as EU MEPs for domestic reasons - instead for personal gain - it's very difficult to not conclude that to vote UKIP today merely puts more of Farage's 'mates' on the gravy train thus shoring up his position. The EU quite deliberately makes expenses, or should I say allowances, easy to claim - it encourages people to go "native". And that is what exactly happens.

UKIP may win the Euro elections, but it will have no bearing on our exit, it will be irrelevant and nothing will change. But I guess it will give a few more MEPs a comfortable salary and pension.

The "Life On Mars" Option Lives On In UKIP...

Not unreasonably we assumed that the question of how we exit from the EU had been resolved by UKIP. Farage made clear that we would need to invoke Article 50 and rightly so for reasons that have been well rehearsed here and elsewhere.

However as can be seen in the image above policy consistency within UKIP on how to exit is still frustratingly elusive. The image has been scanned in from a UKIP newspaper from an article titled "We Expose The Top 10 Myths About The EU".

The paper was delivered to me today along with an election leaflet as part of a campaign for the upcoming Euro elections. Given that the newspaper has not been "localised" in any way we can only assume this newspaper has been sent to households across the country as part of a nation-wide campaign.

We are initially perplexed why a UKIP newspaper directly contradicts Farage himself on major party policy? In addition it is an idea that prompts a "head in the hands" moment that we can undo 40 years of integration, trade agreements and regulation in one single day and carry on as normal. It is simply beyond a joke.

To give an example of the complexity of international relations, the UK's entry into the then EEC took 11 years - we first began negotiations in 1961 and didn't sign a formal agreement until 1972.

Another example is Greenland, a vastly smaller country than ourselves who voted to leave the then EEC in a referendum in 1981. But it wasn't until 1985 that a Treaty was formalised. It was hugely complex and even now it still has a special relationship with the EU as part of its overseas countries and territories.

Switzerland demonstrates other complexities with its bilateral agreements which are now falling apart; bilateral agreements which are still ongoing 22 years after rejecting the EEA agreement in 1992.

Thus should we have an "in-out" referendum the europhiles and the pro-EU media would rip the "Life On Mars" option to pieces, liberally sprinkled with FUD on top. Any referendum would certainly be lost.

I guess though on a very slightly upbeat note if nothing else at least the UKIP paper resolves one long running dilemma for me. I have always been a very reluctant participant in Euro elections. If I voted at all, it was always done through very gritted teeth. To vote in the Euro elections is, for me, to legitimise a system I fundamentally disagree with.

However I understood the pragmatic point that the Euro elections provided a political platform - and money - to help UKIP grow in the face of a hostile domestic political system which inherently is heavily weighed against the rise of new parties.

Yet despite 15 years of MEPs, and all the money that goes with that, UKIP has still failed to provide any coherent strategy or plan to leave. A failure compounded by the fact that very workable and coherent strategies are freely available on the internet, not least by Richard North.

This then leads to two conclusions; that a vote for UKIP is to put more people on the MEP gravy train for no obvious benefit to the eurosceptic cause, and even worse that a vote for UKIP would actually mean we remain in the EU for generations to come by virtue of losing any forthcoming referendum due to a complete lack of a feasible workable exit plan.

The question is often asked when critising UKIP, if not them then who? The answer is now simple - no-one. A vote for UKIP is no different than a vote for the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems: The outcome will be precisely the same - we remain EU members.

After 20 years what a waste...

Political Crapbook

As I've noted before Political Crapbook is a most deceptive blogger. You really need to keep an eye on him by taking regular screenprints - so often does he very silently change his posts and headlines after being corrected on the comments. And he is at deception again - accusing UKIP and the Tories of refusing to back flood prevention in the EU Parliament:

While David Cameron and Nigel Farage were falling over themselves (almost literally) for a good photo op in the south west this week, perhaps they should have told the good people of the Somerset Levels that both their parties refused to back flood prevention in a European Parliament vote. Farage didn’t even bother turning up.

Tory and UKIP groups abstained on a 2012 motion on the implementation of EU water legislation designed to tackle the “rise in the frequency and intensity of floods” with “adaptation and mitigation policies”. The vote emphasised “the importance of risk prevention, mitigation and response strategies to prevent water-related extreme phenomena”.

This is a classic deceptive trick used by europhiles to beat around the head those who oppose EU membership. The EU Parliament does not work like the UK Parliament so how parties vote must be treated with a great degree of caution. But those who support EU membership never make that clear.

The EU often "bundles" favourable and non-favourable votes together - particularly when it comes to the budget and it wants to pass contentious measures. Such tactics become a trap.

The 2012 motion is a classic example. To vote in favour of flood prevention in this motion is to agree with giving more powers to the EU (for example page 6):

5. Reiterates its position that the Commission must submit draft legislation, similar to the directive on floods, which encourages the adoption of an EU policy on water shortages, droughts and adapting to climate change;

So the dilemma for the likes of UKIP is either to vote for more flood prevention and therefore as consequence more EU integration, or vote against further EU integration and therefore against flood prevention. A clear no-win situation for a "Eurosceptic party".

Then we note what is being refered to is merely just a motion - an "own initiative report"  (click to enlarge):

A motion or report, as regular readers will know, means diddly squat. Reports that go before MEPs for possible adoption lies well outside the EU legislative procedure - EU laws are instigated by the Commission not by the EU Parliament. Thus it is not part of the EU lawmaking process. It is a non-legislative report and is non-binding. It is equivalent to an Early Day Motion (commonly known as Parliamentary graffiti) in a Westminster Hall debate. In short a complete waste of time.

Such nuances seem to by-pass Political Crapbook. I guess none of this should really be important except that he has been up for awards, and is clearly taken seriously as demonstrated by the fact that the Tory party has been in touch with him to partially correct matters and that Roger Helmer MEP has commented on his blog.

I wonder what blogging awards Political Crapbook was up for? Not telling the truth?

EU Crackpots?

No matter how widely known and quoted the phrase "never believe what you read in newspapers" is, it often remains a surprise at how regularly the lesson it provides is ignored. This maxim is particularly true - doubly so in fact - when it comes to all matters EU.

Have genuine and hugely damaging examples of EU law and newspapers will ignore it. Throw them a bone of an inconsequential report that shows the EU up as nutters and they lap it up with gusto. Here we have a classic example from the Daily Express.

Despite it being a newspaper that advocates EU exit and despite its chief political commentator, Patrick O’Flynn putting himself forward as a UKIP candidate, it makes exactly the same errors as all the other papers. It appears to be completely incapable of putting forward a detailed and comprehensive case for EU exit. It ignored for example the reasons for VAT on pasties, despite being alerted to it in 2012 on twitter with acknowledgment. So in this spirit we come to the Daily Express's latest tabloid-style EU outrage. It thunders:

MEDDLING Euro politicians have put forward “crackpot” plans to force Britain to give gypsy women seats in the House of Commons.

Undoubtedly quite shocking if true, yet alarm bells always begin to ring when phrases such as "crackpot" and "meddling" are used. The EU does not "meddle", it is part of our country's government. Its job is to make laws for us, a process our country has fully signed up to, albeit without the full commitment of the British people. Unsurprisingly continuing to read on reveals more inconsistencies:

A report outlining a quota scheme is set to go before MEPs and may soon be adopted by the European Parliament.

If it becomes law, all the political parties in the UK will have to impose female gypsy candidates on the electorate and get them into ­Parliament.

For those who have followed the mechanics of EU institutions for some time would have already spotted the 'deliberate mistake'. But with this the Express has no desire to inform its readers, instead it wants to appeal to those who are used to “Parliament” making laws in the UK and who are unversed in the machinery of EU law.

EU lawmaking begins with the executive - the EU Commission - which is the only body that has the ability to propose new laws, and it can only do so with a legal basis that is outlined within EU treaties. The Commission proposes a draft law to both the EU Parliament and the Council which ultimately has to be approved by both bodies. 

This is 'ordinary legislative procedure', formally known before the Lisbon Treaty as 'co-decision' - the main legislative procedure by which EU directives and regulations are adopted. Article 294 lays the procedure here on page 197. The simplest way of describing the procedure is that it has three potential stages, or readings, and eight termination or exit points, for legislative outcomes - five exit points mean the act is adopted, three mean the act is not adopted.

With this in mind we immediately know that any report that goes before MEPs for possible adoption lies well outside the EU legislative procedure - it is not part of the lawmaking process. A quick look at the report itself confirms this:

In other words it is a non-legislative report and is non-binding. Nothing more than a kite flying exercise, which appears to have little support, it's nothing more than a Westminster Hall debate. Interestingly the Express carries quotes from UKIP MEP Gerald Batten:

Ukip Euro MP Gerard Batten said: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot legislation from the EU. 

Only it's not legislation, it's not even close - a UKIP MEP should know this and he should be telling the British public that this is the case - informing the debate for exit. But he chooses not to. Batten continues:

"But if adopted, it’ll put yet more legal obligations on countries such as Britain with generous benefits systems. I can guarantee that when this goes before the European Parliament it will be voted for by a majority of MEPs. Ukip MEPs will of course vote against, but if we want to protect ourselves against the EU then we simply have to leave.”

Again he falls in line with the Express' article, clearly implying that adoption by the EU Parliament will place "legal obligations" on the UK. This is simply not the case, he should know better than this. But I guess this is the same chap who writes a paper that advocates a UK exit without invoking Article 50 - a policy of just ripping up international agreements which would be disastrous...a view that is now against official UKIP policy.

Europe Without Britain

Europe Without Britain (Assessing the Impact on the EU of a British Withdrawal) is the title of a paper by Tim Oliver from the German Institute for International & Security affairs. A paper very kindly brought to my attention by Sean O'Hare in the comments of my previous blog piece.

Undoubtedly the irony will not be lost that the Germans appear to have considered the wider implications of the UK leaving more than the UK itself, despite us being by some distance the most Eurosceptic of all EU nations, a feeling promoted often by ill-disguised German-phobia. As yet we still haven't seen an official 'EU-exit' paper by the biggest Eurosceptic party in the UK.

Instead, as Mark B observes on the same blog piece, when it comes to all matters EU "[the UK's] political class have a tendency to talk to the electorate as if we were like children. The "let's give them one last chance", sounds like a mother warning their wayward child before punishment".

Onto the paper itself, regular readers will recognise many of the themes that run through the paper - themes which have been rehearsed many times on numerous Eurosceptic blogs - only in this case it has been fleshed out to 30 pages and largely concentrates on the impact on the EU of a UK exit.

What the paper acknowledges, far more than our own House of Commons research paper, are the problems the EU itself would face were the UK to leave. It's tempting to take an indifferent view to this, but the fact remains that it will still exist on our doorstop, and we would still have to trade and deal with it. Further exacerbating the EU's problems, and consequently the Eurozone, is not in our own self-interest given that circa 40% of our exports depend on it.

Tim Oliver specifically highlights three problems for the EU on UK exit. The first of these is that it will be unprecedented and until now "something of a taboo". As the report notes:

The withdrawals of Greenland in 1985 and Algeria in 1962 had prompted concerns they set precedents for the withdrawal of a member state, but as overseas territories they provided little by way of a guide to how an actual member state might withdraw.

Not only would the EU be concerned with future relations with the UK but far more pressing for itself and its own survival are internal problems and their resolution. The necessity to prop up a fragile Eurozone would be paramount but also, as the report notes, negotiations would need to take place within the EU to amend its own institutions, voting allocations, and quotas. These are issues which are rarely settled easily. Not least the EU budget which would need to be rebalanced, requiring inevitably more contributions from France and Germany undoubtedly to the dissatisfaction of their taxpayers.

There would also need to be decisions on changes to the system of QMV, so as to reflect the disappearance of the UK with its 29 votes. In the ensuing negotiations, all the nation states will be mindful of the numerous scenarios for how this could change the balance of power within the Council. Undoubtedly this would cause conflict and protracted negotiations between smaller states versus large states, northern countries versus southern ones, protectionist versus more liberal and so on. Given the enormity of the consequences and ramifications both economically and politically of the UK leaving and the uncertainty and vagueness of Article 50 one wonders whether it would better for a smaller country to leave first, ahead of the UK, as a kind of dry run.

The UK's 73 seats in the European Parliament would need to be redistributed. The report notes that the process of allocating seats has always been an unclear one, subject as it is to numerous formulas, solutions and political horse-trading. Depending on the date of a UK withdrawal arrangements may need to be put in place for British MEPs to leave the Parliament before the elections due in 2019.

Other institutional changes would mean the loss of an EU Commissioner, the loss of UK judges from the ECJ. Then the question would be whether English would remain the working language of the EU, as a UK exit would leave only Ireland and Malta remaining as the only countries where English is the official language. Given France's track record on that issue this would be in serious doubt - putting the Eurozone at further disadvantage in trading relations with the rest of the world. All of these problems leave us in no doubt that a new EU treaty would be required as changes have to be made to the founding treaties.

The second issue the EU faces is the lost of one of its biggest members. A country that provides an important link to the United States, a country that holds a unique position in the world and one that gives the EU extra credibility, as a member. The EU is bound to lose self-confidence, feel more isolated and probably move further towards protectionism as a result. It would also alter the balance of power within the EU...

A British withdrawal raises a whole host of possibilities about changes to the balance of power and leadership of the EU. A withdrawal could boost the Franco-German axis. This, however, ignores that both Paris and Berlin have often used London to balance the other, something London has often gone along with in the hope of turning the axis into a triangle. Even with other states such as Poland or Italy filling the UK’s place, we cannot overlook how the Franco-German axis has struggled to provide leadership thanks to the widening of the EU. The Franco-German axis and the wider EU have also struggled to adapt to Germany’s increasingly dominant position. The disappearance of a large state such as the UK, one often willing to use its weight to challenge EU thinking, could further embolden Germany’s position and agenda.

The final issue is how the EU deals with the UK after exit....

Despite what British Eurosceptics and Britain’s critics in the rest of the EU might wish, Britain and the EU will remain deeply interconnected. Indeed, the title of this paper itself highlights a common way of thinking that needs to be qualified: a withdrawal could never mean the end of Britain in Europe, only of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. A withdrawal itself may take several years to action, and there exists the possibility of formal relations continuing afterwards in some way

Both the EU and UK would need to come to terms with the ongoing relevance each would have for the other. For the EU, the UK would remain a European power if not an EU-power. A European power that would remain part of the Commonwealth, the UN and NATO. If the UK leaves it sets a precendent, clearing the way for other members to do so thus unravelling quickly the project itself.

The paper is by no means comprehensive, issues such as; free movement of people, civil aviation, overland transport, agriculture, technical barriers to trade, public procurement, scientific research, Schengen, fraud, education, statistics, environment, media, taxation of savings, pensions, Europol and Eurojus are not discussed in detail.

But what it does illustrate is that negotiations of our exit will be just as taxing for the EU as it will for the UK – a point made via a German paper.

Meanwhile in the UK we have to suffer the superficial nonsense of Cameron at a Tory party conference.

Emily Davison - Our Nation's Great Betrayal

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

 - Ronald Reagan

Those of a horse racing inclination will know this Saturday is the Epsom Derby. It will also mark 100 years since the death of Suffragette Emily Davison in 1913 shown in the clip above.

Whether Davison intended to die under the King's horse has always been one of historical controversy. Whatever her intentions however the outcome meant she was to go down in the history books as an iconic figure of the women's suffrage movement, despite her actions often overshadowing other arguably more effective women, such as Millicent Fawcett who lived long enough to see the campaign of women's suffrage through to the end. It's a lesson also in how political movements often split over method.

No doubt the papers this weekend will be full of articles praising the bravery of Emily Davison and what she fought for - already illustrated by the Guardian earlier this week. Ironically what will be hailed as an example of "progressive politics" was at the time ridiculed, dismissed and patronised:

Intuition is far more largely developed in women than in men, but instinct and intuition, although good guides, are not the best masters so far as Parliament is concerned. This is the quality, either of feeling or emotion, which would impress and make itself more distinctly heard in this House if this Bill became law. Parliament is the ultimate seat of authority, where grave questions have to be decided, where men have to use their reasoning faculties which they have gained either in college, business, or commercial life; those reasoning faculties which they have purchased through centuries by hard and bitter experience. Parliament exists for the very purpose of opposing feelings, fancies, and inclinations by reason. The cold light of reason has been and should continue in the future to be the one guide so far as Parliament is concerned... I can only state a plain, undisputed matter of fact. It is for that reason that I oppose the granting of Women Suffrage.

One is reminded of the dismissive tone used to describe current movements and parties that are against the prevailing political consensus.

Not that such lack of self-awareness will prevent comforting self-congratulatory adulation of Davison and women's suffrage in general; an inevitability to be conducted this weekend by newspapers such as the Guardian, Daily Mail and the Telegraph, who fully support our membership of an international organisation that is designed, by its own admission, to remove the very thing she fought for - democracy.

How ironic as we celebrate the actions of Davision, that she would be no more enfranchised today than 100 years ago. Women (as do men) have the symbolic right to enter a polling station and mark a ballot paper with a cross but such actions do not automatically confer democracy. It's not the mark of a cross that counts but what that mark can achieve in practice.

An obvious example of a disconnect between the act of voting and democracy is the EU itself - specifically EU parliamentary elections. Yes, we can vote for MEPs but by doing so we are still unable to change the executive, a government nor are MEPs' able execute their voters' mandate. Similarly in the old USSR, the Supreme Soviet was elected but no-one could seriously suggest as a consequence that the country was democratic.

On a personal note I have two recent relatively simple examples of the current futility of Davison's actions.

My mother-in-law sadly suffers from an eye condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa. This means that although she can still see her sight is progressively failing. Understandably she is more comfortable in her house lit with high wattage incandescent bulbs that can be adjusted to her satisfaction via dimmer switches. She now bitterly complains at uselessness of the pathetic illumination of low energy bulbs and their incompatibility with dimmer switches. Such a ban on incandescent bulbs has been introduced by the European Union, thus, 100 years after Davison, it has rendered my mother in law effectively disenfranchised despite having the right to mark a piece of paper. She is unable to change this law without our exit.

Another example is my next door neighbour who has recently completed her qualifications for being a mid-wife. When signing my nomination form to stand as a local council candidate, she articulated to me her acute frustration at not being able to obtain insurance as an independent mid-wife, instead she could only be insured if she worked as an NHS one. Needless to say:

On October 25th 2013, it will become illegal for independent midwives to practise as they do now. EU Directive 2011/24 on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, once implemented in the UK, will require all healthcare professionals to have professional indemnity insurance or an equivalent guarantee or other scheme to be in place. The legislative proposals for implementation of this Directive have not yet been published for consultation but it is assumed that insurance cover will be made a condition of registration as a midwife with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In 2002 the last commercial insurer offering insurance to independent midwives withdrew from the market as it was not commercially viable given the small numbers of independent midwives in the UK. As a result professional indemnity insurance is no longer commercially available for self-employed independent midwives.

Another lady...deprived of her voice via the ballot box. No doubt among all the exaltations, all political parties will attempt to claim Davison as their own. But the brutal truth is, among the fine words, their actions have let her down. 

As a nation we betrayed her; a 100 years on and nothing has fundamentally changed. We owe her, and her legacy, big time - we have a duty to try to right a massive wrong in her memory at the very least.

Euro Nutters

The Mail on Sunday has a piece outlining the "political guerrilla warfare tactics" used over Cameron's defeat on the EU budget last week:

A rebel Tory MP had secret talks with Ed Balls as part of the plot to defeat David Cameron in Wednesday's shock Commons vote on the EU budget crisis.

Harwich MP Douglas Carswell discussed the rebellion with a member of Shadow Chancellor Mr Balls's entourage to make sure the rebel Tory-Labour ambush was carried out with deadly effect.

Not much there comes as a massive surprise, but at the end of the article is this quote from a Labour MP:

'The warm glow of defeating Cameron won't last long.

'To see us trashing everything we have ever said and done on Europe for a few good headlines was not edifying.

'Walking through the voting lobbies with a bunch of wild-eyed Tory Euro nutters was a repulsive experience.

'It would never have happened in Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson's day – and I won't be doing it again.'

This on a vote by Parliament of how much more (or less) of our money should go to the EU. When reading the above quote note the words missing; "taxpayer", "constituents"...