EU Defends Anti-Democracy Crackdown

From the EU Observer (my emphasis):

A senior advisor to EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton has defended Bahrain's security forces after they opened fire on protesters with live ammunition last week.

Speaking to MEPs in the foreign affairs committee in Brussels on Tuesday (22 March) after visiting Bahrain, Robert Cooper, Ashton's top advisor on the western Balkans and the Middle East, said the island is normally "a rather pleasant, peaceful place."

He went on: "I'm not sure if the police have had to deal with these public order questions before. It's not easy dealing with large demonstrations in which there may be violence. It's a difficult task for policemen. It's not something that we always get right in the best Western countries and accidents happen."

Accidents happen apparently.

Hattip: Open Europe

Update: EU fires water cannons and tear gas on protesters:

Thousands of protesters urging an end to Europe-wide austerity measures are marching in Brussels, the Belgian capital, outside a venue where regional leaders are meeting.

Police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse groups of demonstrators close to the European Union summit on Thursday, after activists blocked key roads in the city and caused a traffic gridlock.

The EU really hates this democracy malarkey doesn't it?

Hattip: The Talking Clock

Open Your Wallets (Again)

On budget day here when, laughably, we have had a so-called "budget for growth", the Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates has resigned after the country's parliament rejected an austerity budget:

Britain is facing another multi-billion euro bail-out bill as Portugal followed Ireland into debt crisis when the country's government on Wednesday night lost a confidence vote on austerity measures.

The prospect of a new Portugal crisis and a potential bail-out worth up to £61 billion will overshadow Thursday's EU summit, a meeting aimed at repairing the damage done to the euro by Irish and Greek bailouts last year.

Portugal is about to be bailed out - with our money.

Deutschland, Deutschland And The Euro

Some time ago, I lived in Germany for a number years on and off, as part of a secondment by working for a German company. One of things that I noticed (among many) was that the German press had a far far less critical view of the EU than ours - perhaps understandably for obvious historical reasons. However this, almost slavish, praise of the EU was at odds with the views of the many Germans that I spoke to when I lived there (sound familiar?)

It's with this in mind that I highlight this from the German news magazine Der Spiegel, titled:

Why Ditching the Euro Would Be a Bad Idea.

Der Spiegel is currently embarking on a '5 big myths of the Euro and why everyone is wrong about the D-Mark' article. Now, it's not for me to say if this is a coincidence as there is an impeding bailout of Portugal, undoubtedly with German taxpayers' money, or that the Lisbon Treaty is currently being self-amended for the first time to provide 'a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro'.

Naturally the German taxpayers are wary of more of their money being used to bailout out other countries, unless it is on their terms. But what is interesting are the arguments put forward for Germany's continued membership of the Euro / EU:

Still, even without a direct referendum on the matter, no one can seriously argue that Germans never had a chance to air their views. Germans have never been shy about taking to the streets in protest. They also had their say at the ballot box. In the end, it was their own parliament that approved the Maastricht Treaty. If they had wanted to block the introduction of the euro, they could have voted for different representatives.

Similar arguments are always used here as well, for example Tory MP Alan Haselhurst in 1991 on the Maastricht debate:

Let us consider what we spend our time doing. The Order Paper shows the various matters that concern us. Our constituency mail bags show us the matters that our constituents want us to consider. We should recognise that we are not dealing with great international issues all the time. I must have had about three letters about the Maastricht treaty, but I had 10 times that number about Sunday trading and similar matters.

And Labour MP Mike Gapes on the Lisbon Treaty:

Many words have been spoken about the great interest in the [Lisbon Treaty] outside the House, but I have had only one e-mail and one letter from my constituents— [ Interruption. ] I am waiting for more to come.

(of course this reasoning is never applied to climate change policy which usually doesn't even register in polls of voters' concerns).

I can't help feeling, with the Der Spiegel going big on the pitfalls of leaving the Euro, that someone somewhere in Germany is getting a little nervous.

Quote Of The Day

Well, more accurately, a quote from last Sunday's Irish Independent, regarding Ireland's request for a change in the interest rate it pays on its bailout terms. Sarkozy had asked Kenny, Irish Taoiseach, for a "gesture" on Ireland's 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate. The Irish Independent's response?

"Well, he deserves a gesture -- but a gesture involving two digits and no other numbers"

The Tories Boast That We're Ruled By The EU

The Tories are now actually boasting that we no longer run our own country. From England Expects:

"The Tories didn't dare do it, the Lib Dems don't care about it and frankly the Labour Party isn't there on the subject at all" said Nigel Farage this afternoon, after the Labour proposal to scrap the VAT increase on Fuel was defeated in the House of Commons due to EU rules that ban more than three rates of VAT duty.

"To do what Balls wanted would break EU law", he went on, "But all that the Government have managed to do by pointing this out is to show their utter weakness in the face of Brussels dictat".

"When will they get it into their thick heads that they, and the Labour Government before them have given away the independence of this country?" He said.

"Think about it for a moment. The Conservative led Government defeats an Labour motion to reduce tax, by boasting that it doesn't have the power to set UK tax rates.

Extraordinary, and disgraceful. And Mr Cameron refuses to offer a referendum because he thinks that we are better off in the EU?"

"Will somebody please tell me what the point is of Mr Cameron? What is the point of his Government? We would be better and more honest closing down Westminster and opening it up to tourists - carefully remembering not to give discounts to UK citizens - because that would breach EU equality legislation", said Farage.

Guess What's Missing?

My MP Ed Vaizey has a regular column in most of the local publications across our contistuency as you would expect. Here's an extract from his latest column in my local magazine regarding fishing:

Over recent weeks I have received a great many emails on two issues in particular: fish and forests...The other issue that has excercised a lot of people is the future of our fish stocks. There is curently a very popular Early Day Motion in Parliament about the damaging practice of discarding unwanted fish. At present, when fishermen trawl for fish, they often throw back up to half their catch, because the fish are too small, too young or too unpopular a species to be sold. These discarded fish are mostly killed by being caught; they are beginning to pollute our seas which will harm the future of our fishing industry. It is also morally wrong, I believe, to kill animals that will not be eaten.

The Government is therefore looking at a number of ways to reform the fishing industry. There have been remarkable results from a pilot scheme which incentiveses fishermen to design more selective nets and DEFRA is looking at new quota systems that will measure the amount caught, instead of the amount brought into dock.

No prizes for guessing what is missing from Mr Vaizey's article - perhaps he forgot to mention it, afterall the Tories promised to get tough on the EU, so surely Mr Vaizey would wish to use this as an example of repatriation, by the Tories, of powers back from the EU.

Surely?

Doing Nothing Is The New Getting Tough

One of the consequences of the Daily Express' recent 'out of EU' campaign is that, probably inevitably, the Daily Mail appears to have taken a harder stance against the EU itself (perhaps it has realised that EU stories sell papers). Not so long ago, stories on immigration barely mentioned the EU element, not any longer.

Today we have another such story in the Mail, one which has a 'The Tories think we really are stupid' element to it:

The ‘mistake’ of giving millions of new EU citizens immediate rights to work in Britain will not be repeated, Damian Green vowed last night.

Ooooh are the Tories going to get tough on the EU and immigration (are they hell), so how does Damian Green propose to avoid Labour's mistake of letting immigration run riot:

The immigration minister said the toughest possible restrictions...would apply to nations trying to join the union.

They include Turkey, Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia and Montenegro.

So the possible restrictions only apply to new states; controlling immigration from states who are already members is of course not possible. Even here with new states there's a catch, as the article points out. There is a transitional period where restrictions can be applied, to help limit the initial impact on the Labour market:

The transitional arrangements in the Accession Treaties of 16 April 2003...provide that for the first two years following accession access to the labour markets of the EU Member States that formed part of the EU before the respective accessions will depend on the national law and policy of those Member States. In practical terms, this means that a worker from one of the Member States that acceded is likely to need a work permit.

National measures may be extended for a further period of three years. After that, an EU-Member State that applied national measures can continue to apply such national measures for a further two years if it notifies to the Commission serious disturbances in its labour market.

It's during the transitional period that the Tories intend to impose the strictest possible (what the EU let's us do in other words) restrictions. But then the transitional period expires:

The transitional arrangements cannot extend beyond an absolute maximum of seven years.

Because of course the free movement of workers is a fundamental part of the EU.

So there you have it, the Tories' idea of getting tough, is to do nothing about current EU immigration, and ask the EU commission nicely if we can limit immigration for 7 years from new member states. And when the 7 years expires then...er...do nothing. So we will be in the same position as under Labour but with a 7 year hiatus instead.

What a deeply insulting and patronising party the Tories are. I think it's time to use a new word in anger that Witterings from Witney has posted about - it's all bollitics.

Minority Report

Now no longer fiction but fact thanks to the EU. The EU Arrest Warrant can now be used for crimes you may commit in the future:

Can We Sink Any Lower?

I return from my short interlude to this:

Eight SAS soldiers detained by Libyan rebels near Benghazi have left the country aboard HMS Cumberland, according to Sky News sources. According to reports, the group had been taken to Benghazi after being apprehended near the port city.

this:

A conversation purportedly between Richard Northern, the British ambassador to Libya, and a spokesman for Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the former Libyan justice minister, who now heads the rebel National Libyan Council in Benghazi, has been intercepted and released on Libyan state television

Richard Northern, who left Libya last week, called for the release of an SAS mission being held by rebel forces in Benghazi, saying there had been a "misunderstanding".

And this:

The Duke of York paid the price for his association with a convicted paedophile as the Government decided to downgrade his role as Britain’s trade ambassador.

Our Special Forces, diplomats and Royal trade envoy have becoming laughing stocks. Can our country's reputation get any lower? I'm very tempted to get back on the next available plane and bugger off out of here.

Hardly Anybody Gives A Monkey’s?

Despite my previous post, and currently being on holiday albeit at Heathrow, I couldn't resist this final post before I return. Mike Smithson of the mostly marvelous Political Betting site, is a Liberal Democrat, with pro-EU tendencies that often emerge in his posts, for example November last year:

Has Britain’s membership ceased to be an issue?

Last week my post on the public not really “caring a monkey’s” about the EU caused a little bit of a stir in some places. My argument was simple - we’ve been in the EU for 37 years and Britain’s membership has ceased to be an issue for all but a very small minority on voters.

I quoted the latest MORI issues index where those naming the Europe/EU as the “most important issue facing Britain” simply did not register and did not even rate a one percent figure by the pollster.

There have been times in the past when the response on EU-related matters has been very high but the long-term trend is one of decline to almost zero.

I stick with the point I made. Hardly anybody gives a monkey’s.

It's the same point that EuroGoblin repeatedly and misleading argues for. Now today Mr Smithson has changed his tune somewhat:

Why’s the ECJ being so breathtakingly stupid?

Should Britain say it will defy the court?

The story that’s made me most angry today has been the extraordinary decision by the European Court of Justice to stop insurance companies from allowing women to pay smaller car insurance premiums even though they are less likely to have accidents.

This is being stopped on ground of “gender equality”. Andy Cooke on the previous thread had this right:-

What a stupid ruling by the ECJ!

The different premiums aren’t based on sexism, but on demographic differences in propensities to have an accident! Will it be illegal to charge different premiums based on age? Illegal to charge different premiums based on where you live? On how experienced you are? Whether you’ve had accidents or traffic violations in the past?

So millions of teenaged girls will have to pay extra to subsidise teenaged boys. Women will have to subsidise men.

Soon, those of us in their thirties, forties and fifties will have to pay a bit more for the teenaged drivers (otherwise there will be significant age discrimination, surely?)

The ECJ are hardly improving their image - more like reinforcing the stereotype of stupid, out-of-touch politically correct idiots.

Could this be an opportunity for the coalition to have a battle with Europe?

Now who gives a monkey's? First they came for...