Island Monkeys

As I discovered when I was seconded out to Germany as part of my job over a decade ago and lived there for 2 years, the above term was used often by Germans to describe those who lived in the UK. Like most simple and blunt characterisations it comes with more than a grain of truth, however much the term may prickle.

This description is no more obvious than when tackling our membership of the European Union. Not only according to some so-called eurosceptics can we arbitrary remove ourselves (6th largest economy) without any kind of consequences for the world economy but that many of our institutions are unwilling - or unable - to admit where our real government lies. Every story in the media, every MP's phrase, has to be planted with a UK flag thus ignoring (wilfully or otherwise) the bigger picture.

Nothing illustrates this more than the complete silence from nearly all newspapers, and the BBC, regarding the news today that the Royal Mail is being privatised as a direct result of EU laws - the arguments of which have been rehearsed on here, and elsewhere, many times to the point of tedium. So instead we see, for example, privatisation discussed in purely domestic terms:

And:

Depressingly the insular nature of the reasons that lie behind privatisation of the Royal Mail is echoed in many of the comments, across all media platforms. Words like; "back to the '80s", "Thatcher", "Same old Tories". Phrases that starkly betray short memories of Labour attempting the same in the run-up to the last election. But no matter it seems, everything must be seen in tribilism of party politics, in the false vertical dividing line of so-called left and right. All the while it ignores the fact that it's always a useful guide, if Labour and the Tories agree on a policy - and it goes against their party members' wishes - then more often than not Brussels lies behind it.

But, nevermind, it's conference season so we'll see the same old tribal bollocks trotted out en masse as before. The Lib Dems last year:

The Lib Dems this year

One wonders why bother? It bores me to tears let alone, I guess, most of my readers to keep mentioning the EU's effects on the Royal Mail. And for what reason, when so many cannot accept that therein lies the real cause - that they are in denial. In the words of Kenneth Williams; "what's the bloody point?"

Third Postal Directive

It's almost like someone's been reading this blog, letter in the Telegraph:

SIR – You report (December 24) that the sale of the Royal Mail may signify the end of daily deliveries at a flat price. In a separate article on the same day, George Osborne, the Chancellor, commendably urges that Britain should pull back from the EU. The two are directly related: the EU's Third Postal Directive will threaten the Royal Mail by removing its protection for letters under 50g.

EU directives have already brought the Royal Mail to its knees. Norway, which is out of the EU in a "pulled back" position, is refusing to implement this directive under its European Economic Area (EEA) agreement. We could do the same if we rejoined the European Free Trade Area we created in 1960 and also signed up to the EEA Agreement.

However, we are in a strong position to negotiate an agreement, which refuses to implement many other of the EU's laws. I commend that course of action.

David Campbell Bannerman MEP (Con)

Made From Norwegian Wood

As Richard North notes, you can tell that the 'Norway' proposal has put the wind up the Europhiles made evident by the amount of attention that they're paying to it, imbue naturally with BBC bias by omission. By eliminating the apocalyptic economic warnings of leaving the single market that will inevitably be rolled out en masse, Norway leaves only the (untrue) 'fax democracy' argument against leaving the EU. Negate that and they are left with nothing.

Norway, like Lichtenstein and Iceland are members of the EEA and EFTA (with Switzerland being a member of EFTA only). They participate fully in the committees that assist the EU Commission in administering or developing framework programmes and specific programmes:

All in all, Norwegian officials take part in just over 200 committees under the European Commission. The presence of Norwegian experts provides an opportunity to exert influence through direct participation at a time when national points of view are usually still flexible and before positions have become firmly established.

This comes under Articles 99 and 100 of the 1994 Agreement of European Economic Area. Artcle 99 (page 32) states (my emphasis):

1. As soon as new legislation is being drawn up by the EC Commission in a field which is governed by this Agreement, the EC Commission shall informally seek advice from experts of the EFTA States in the same way as it seeks advice from experts of the EC Member States for the elaboration of its proposals.

2. When transmitting its proposal to the Council of the European Communities, the EC Commission shall transmit copies thereof to the EFTA States.
At the request of one of the Contracting Parties, a preliminary exchange of views takes place in the EEA Joint Committee.

3. During the phase preceding the decision of the Council of the European Communities, in a continuous information and consultation process, the Contracting Parties consult each other again in the EEA Joint Committee at the significant moments at the request of one of them.

4. The Contracting Parties shall cooperate in good faith during the information and consultation phase with a view to facilitating, at the end of the process, the decision-taking in the EEA Joint Committee.

And Article 100 says:

...when drawing up draft measures the EC Commission shall refer to experts of the EFTA States on the same basis as it refers to experts of the EC Member States.

Clearly then Norway has the opportunity to have input into the formation of single market rules via the EEA Joint Committee and the EEA Council. Then ultimately Norway, and other members of EEA, has the insurance of a veto as a longstop. It is a right that Norway has already deployed when, in 2011, it vetoed the EU's 3rd Postal Directive (2008/6/EC), as this quarterly report from Posten Norge (Norway's Postal Service) writes:

The postal market in Europe was liberalised with effect from 01.01.2011 in accordance with the EUs third Postal Directive. However, a decision made at the Labour Party National Conference makes it clear that the Norwegian government does not wish to implement the EU's Third Postal Directive. The consequences of a possible veto are uncertain, but the Board of Directors considers the risk of the EU imposing sanctions on Norway Post's activities outside Norway as low.

Contrast this with the UK, who eagerly implemented the relevant EU Directive into the Postal Services Act 2011:

The Bill implements provisions of Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services.

This Directive amends Directive 97/67/EC which was previously amended by
Directive 2002/39/EC. References are to the consolidated version of the Directive.

The same EU Postal Directives that have done enormous damage to our Royal Mail service.

And not only has Norway used the veto but it also uses the right as a threat to enhance its negotiating position on a number of occasions. For example in 2011 the Norwegian government considered using its veto against a new EU Directive, then being discussed by the EU Parliament attempting to set a limit to the European banks deposit insurance guarantee. In an interview with the Norwegian newspaper “Nationen,” Norwegian minister of finance, Sigbjørn Johnsen, refuse to accept the upcoming regulations from Brussels (via Google translate):

"[The EU] understand well the arguments we make, and I feel that the arguments go in, but time will tell if we get through", says Johnsen "But yes, the veto is even considered. But our main line is getting through."

However one shouldn't get carried away. The Norway solution is anything but a permanent solution for us - and most certainly it is not perfect. In many ways Norwegians suffer from the same problems as us, ruled by homegrown Europhile politicians, stitch-ups in their Parliament as a result - which make, despite the power of the veto - Norway one of the most obedient countries towards the EU and the EEA:

Norwegian lawmakers and bureaucrats obediently follow directives issued by the European Union (EU), now probably on controversial data storage rules as well, even though Norway isn’t an EU member. The latest example of obedience brought together arch-rivals Labour and the Conservatives, because of their leaders’ desires to avoid an EU veto.

Despite Norwegian public's scepticism about the EU, made clear in two referendum rejections of membership, Norway has incorporated approximately three-quarters of all EU legislative acts into Norwegian legislation as part of the EEA - according to this massive 900 page report commissioned in 2010 by the Norwegian Government as a comprehensive review of Norway’s agreements with the EU. 

Thus the willingness of Norway's parliament to bend to the will of the EU is not because of a 'democratic deficit' as a consequence of Norway being a member of the EEA, as the introductory text claims (page 7):

The most problematic aspect of Norway’s form of association with the EU is the fact that Norway is in practice bound to adopt EU policies and rules on a broad range of issues without being a member and without voting rights. This raises democratic problems.

...instead the deficit lies between Norway's parliament and its own people. Norway has more power over EU regulations in relation to the single market than ourselves, but it chooses by and large not to utilise it. Now doesn't that sound familiar? So ultimately exiting the EU in whatever format we choose still requires a massive overhaul of democracy at home in relation to how we're governed.

An Uphill Battle

It's long been my view that a referendum on EU membership is far from a foregone conclusion and will probably put back the cause for years.

Over the last couple of days has further confirmed that view. Two stories have agitated the MSM to a great degree reflecting popular anger, however they are stories which also do not acknowledge the dead hand of Brussels that lies behind them. A trait that is very common.

Firstly there has been much consternation over the dramatic increase in Royal Mail stamps. But what's not mentioned is that many of the recent problems of the Royal Mail, including the dramatic rise in the cost of stamps, stem largely from EU Postal Directives - a point that was made here and expressed very clearly by a Government review of the postal services in 2008. See here, page 19 onwards. However in the MSM? Not an 'EU mention' at the time.

And secondly there's also George Osborne's extension of VAT for all hot food as per his recent budget. Now VAT is, as Autonomous Mind rightly says, an EU Tax:

This concerns the proposal in Gideon Osborne’s coagulation budget to impose VAT on hot take-out food.  Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the governance of this country will know Value Added Tax is a European Union matter and that member states must impose a VAT rate – currently with a minimum standard rate of 15%.

VAT is one of the most obvious and long-standing EU interferences in our life. Therefore any major changes will almost certainly have the dead hand of Brussels behind it. And so it proves as Richard North demonstrates:

And there gripped the cold, mindless jaws of the VAT Sixth Directive, of which the ECJ had so cruelly reminded us. To their horror, HMRC have confronted their worst nightmare. If the fish fryers are selling hot food rather than services, and have to charge VAT on it, so does everybody else who sells hot food.

That is what the Sixth Directive says: you can't charge different rates of VAT on the same goods. If a member state charges VAT on some hot take-away foods, it must charge the same rate of VAT on all hot take-away foods. They must, therefore, all be charged at zero rate or the standard (higher) rate. And, of course, Georgie opted for the higher rate, taking in the (hot) puddings and pies.

The acknowledgement from the MSM? Er...nowt, nothing. Now, I've often wondered whether large scale omission of EU matters in our country by our MSM is due to laziness and ignorance or a deliberate 'conspiracy of silence'. A Twitter exchange today with Daniel Knowles from the Daily Telegraph suggests the former.

Daniel Knowles has blogged about the recent VAT changes, couching his piece in the classic, and politically self-comforting style, of Tories are rich and toffs:

This morning, the Conservatives have no such luck; for raising tax on Greggs Cornish pasties, George Osborne is described as a "modern Marie Antoinette". In its leader column, the newspaper says that "unlike Sun readers", he and his Cabinet colleagues, "don't worry how to pay for food, rent or petrol. If they ever have done, they certainly can't remember how it feels now". For a moment, I thought I was reading the Daily Mirror, or at least a Dan Hodges blog post.

Daniel misses the point of course, it's not the love of being a toff that is the reason but the Tory love of the EU that has led to this change. A point I mentioned to him on Twitter with revealing responses. Firstly we had the usual "No one cares about this because of the EU":

As I've pointed out before people do care about the EU because it affects the majority of the top ten issues that they care most about. But then Daniel is not even "sure this is an EU issue at all". FFS, call yourself a journalist? No of course VAT isn't, not at all. Then we get this:

Apparently the Sun doesn't mention the EU so that's all ok then? Because the Sun is the Oracle when it comes to all matters EU. But then...we get to the final flurry:

Let's remind ourselves that the self-proclaimed "Assistant Comment Editor at Telegraph.co.uk. who writes about politics and economics" thinks Thatcher introduced VAT for ideological reasons. Oh dear, oh dear. I had moments of doubt whether he was taking the piss or being serious. But I've not a reply since when I highlighted his mistake.

And if that's bad enough then there's today's Daily Express. In 2010 the Daily Express ran with this front page below:

The Daily Express is the only British paper to openly advocate complete withdrawal, whilst the Daily Mail and the Telegraph still want in. Yet today's front Daily Express looks like this:

Despite two EU open goals, the Daily Express in the print edition does not mention the EU once regarding the price of stamps, nor (scanned here) on page 2 in relation to VAT on 'hot foods'

The Express has editorials on both matters:

SINCE the advent of the internet making the nationwide delivery of ordinary post pay its way has become more challenging.

Many fewer letters are sent these days so economies of scale are less effective than they once were.

The Royal Mail also has to cope with private competitors plundering the lucrative business despatch market, so the scope for subsidising letter delivery from other very profitable activities is also limited.

And yet the one thing that will hasten its decline is round after round of massive rises in the price of stamps. There is still a lot Royal Mail can do to become more efficient but it doesn’t even seem to want to try.

Not everyone is able to access the wonders of email and almost everyone does, on occasion, need to use the post.

That the organisation that ushered in the Penny Black should now be anticipating the £1 first class stamp suggests it has lost the plot.

And:

THE revelation that Chancellor George Osborne cannot remember the last time he ate a hot pasty offers a rare political opportunity for Labour.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls would be fully justified in making some fact-finding trips to hot food takeaways.

Although by the looks of things he probably already has.

So the so-called Eurosceptic "we want out" Daily Express, even in their editorials, cannot bring themselves to mention the EU on issues which clearly agitate their readers. With EU friends like this who needs enemies?

Absolutely hopeless.