Books
Click images for more details
Bishop Hill Jun 27, 2008 EU A German film crew, with permission to work inside the EU parliament, films MEPs signing on to get their attendance allowance, before waltzing off for the weekend. Permission or not, the crew are bundled away by security men. There seems to be an unwritten rule that you can film, but you mustn't film the criminal classes clambering aboard the gravy train.
Bishop Hill Jun 13, 2008 EU It looks like it's in the bag and the Irish have saved the nations of Europe to fight again another day. That's not to say that the EU vampire won't rise from the dead again, but for the minute, let's just be grateful our friends over the water have spoken up for all the people around Europe who have been denied a voice.
And in honour of this victory, here's a blast of a bunch of Irish musicians who can probably lay a fair claim to being the best there ever was - the Bothy Band.
Bishop Hill Apr 27, 2008 EU Liberalism A LibDem MEP called Chris Davies bemoans his colleagues decision to hide the EU Auditors' report on the Union's finances over on Comment is Free.
"Taxpayers could be forgiven for believing that there are more honest people to be found in prison than sit in the European parliament." This was my comment after MEPs voted on Tuesday by majorities of more than 2:1 to prevent publication of auditors' reports that reveal the flagrant misuse of public money by some.
All very commendable, I'm sure, particularly as Mr Davies appears to have put himself in the firing line by standing up in this way. It's probably just as well that he's an elected representative though. If he were a humble (or even a not-so-humble) eurocrat he would have found himself out on his ear long before this.
It's amazing how the political classes keep up their support for the EU in the face of every scandal, every destructive regulation, every cock-eyed directive that emerges from the doors of the EU edifice. I never understand how the LibDems can bring themselves to join the happy throng singing the praises of the supranational joys of rule from Brussels.
Whichever way you look at it, Brussels is delivering the opposite of liberalism. For the LibDems to support it makes no sense. Brussels gives us centralised government and big government. Really big. This is supersized government with extra fries and a stonking great tub of lard to dip them in. All served up in a gilded trough that will tickle the fancy of even the most discerning snout.
"But don't worry!", say the LibDems. "The EU will change. We are working to change it.They are coming round to our way of doing things."
And what about the corruption? As Mr Davies failed to point out, the EU auditors have now refused to sign off the Union's accounts for thirteen years on the trot. "Ah, but the corruption is taking place in member states", say the LibDems. "Don't worry, they'll change. We're working hard on it."
And the lunacy of EU governance. What about that? The Common Agricultural Policy, The Common Fisheries Policy, The Reach directive, The Biofuels Obligation? "Don't worry. They'll see things our way soon", say the LibDems. "There are new faces in European capitals. An opportunity is coming to change the EU for the better."
After all these years, and with what? nothing to show for the LibDems' persuasive powers at all? it all rings rather hollow, wouldn't you say?
Bishop Hill The prime minister has urged the G8 to take action on food prices and to stem the upward pressure from biofuels. In a letter to the Japanese PM he says:
"There is a growing consensus that we need urgently to examine the impact on food prices of different kinds and production methods of biofuels, and ensure that their use is responsible and sustainable."
In the face of further criticism from aid officials and with the World Bank now adding its voice to the chorus of warnings, it's become clear that food price inflation is being driven mainly by biofuels production. The problem for Mr Brown is that he is can't actually address the root causes of the problem directly. Biofuels usage in the UK is mandated by the EU and Brussels is digging its heels in and refusing to change its policy. This being the case, Brown is powerless to act and is forced to hide behind the fig leaf of an international aid package. The futility of this kind of gesture becomes clear with even a moment's consideration of the number of people who are affected by price rises. There is no way that an package with any prospect of being realised could make any difference to the millions affected.
Once again, the EU has shown that it puts "the project" ahead of any other considerations, including humanitarian ones. Why we should remain a member of a body which treats poor people with such contempt is something that Europhiles will have to explain.
Bishop Hill Mar 6, 2008 EU Tim Worstall points us to a summary of the EU auditor's report into MEP's expenses. This has been viewed in camera by a few people, but it's the first time any info beyond rumours of malfeasance have made it into the public arena. The rumours turn out to have been right.
The auditor has focused on payments to MEPs' staff.
[T]here is often no proportionality between the tasks performed and the remuneration received by a parliamentary assistant.
The audit report gives a number of examples to what situations this leads:
1. Payment of full allowance to a service provider with only one accredited assistant (1 case),
2. Payment of full allowance to a service provider with no accredited assistants (2 cases),
3. Payment of allowance to a company with no activity shown in annual accounts (1 case),
4. Payment of allowance to service provider with irrelevant activities (2 cases).In the first case the service provider's area of business was the provision of child care. In the second case, the business appeared to be the trading of wood.
We can be quite sure that the beneficiaries of all this activity are the MEPs' friends and family. How so? Because they have said there's nothing they can do about it:
The Parliament Administration said in reply to the auditor that retroactive correction and clarification was not possible as a legal basis was lacking in the rules.
And there's more: the auditor has also looked at redundancy handouts to assistants of MEPs who were not re-elected. Of his sample of 42:
The sheer corruption of the political class is almost unimaginable. Labour, Conservative, LibDem. You can see why they keep voting for "ever-closer union" - it's the opportunity it gives them for "ever-greater graft".
The original report is here.
Update:
If you think I'm wrong about this, MEPs have voted not to publish their expenses.
Bishop Hill Mar 6, 2008 EU Richard North of EU Referendum fame may know as much about the EU as anyone alive, so his thoughts on Parliament's refusal to ask the people about the Lisbon treaty are worth noting. He also has something to say about where we go from here.
[T]he effect of what they have done is to destroy the contract between us, the people and our representatives. By this contract they rule us, with our consent.
That consent has now been withdrawn. This is no longer our parliament. In any meaningful sense, it is no longer a parliament. Be done with it.
Bishop Hill Mar 5, 2008 EU There's a lot of tit-for-tat politicking going on at the moment over who wanted a referendum and who didn't and when and why. The Conservatives were against a referendum on Maastricht (but it wasn't in their manifesto then, so that was OK apparently). Labour and the LibDems said that they wanted one on the constitution in their manifestos but the cover of the Lisbon Treaty is blue, and the Constitution one is red, so it's OK, OK? And the LibDems say they're calling for a referendum on whether we should make water flow uphill instead - they promised a referendum and they're fighting to give it to you!
Thank-you all.
When should we get a referendum?
It's fair to say that there is no default right to a referendum, which undermines the way things are done in the UK. We're a representive democracy after all. Many argue, however, that parliament should refer to the people over fundamental constitutional issues, although it's clear that this was not done for Maastricht or say for Scottish devolution.
I would argue that when an issue is (a) constitutional, and (b) related to the EU, then it is necessary to put the matter to a referendum. Why do I think only EU matters should be treated in this way? The reason is that the single fundamental fact of the English Constitution is that no parliament may bind its successors. But the succession of EU treaties tying us closer and closer to the EU have had the effect of doing just that. If Lisbon is ratified tonight, it is not possible for a future parliament to unratify it. It has to unratify all the other EU treaties as well. The effect is to limit future parliaments to a choice of "all or nothing". Whichever way you look at it, this is still binding them.
The ropes may only be tied around Britannia's feet, but she is still bound.
Bishop Hill Feb 29, 2008 EU A europolicywonk called John Palmer is congratulating the EU on reforming the Common Agricultural Policy in order to boost food production.
Although governments have been reluctant to talk publicly about the looming crisis of food inflation and outright food shortages, the European commission has proved quick to make drastic changes in the management of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
It does strike me as a bit sad that when the EU fails to act like a bunch of drunken imbeciles, it's presented as a policy triumph.
Bishop Hill Dec 18, 2007 EU DK has a video of what happened at the signing of the Charter of Fundamental Rights at the EU Parliament the other day. The Charter is to form an annexe to the new EU constitution (mini-treaty, farrago, call it what you will).
It is depressingly predictable that this would have gone entirely unreported by the British media.
Bishop Hill Jun 22, 2007 EU Benedict Brogan reports:
The French have craftily got the Germans to change the Union's objectives from "The Union shall establish an internal market where competition is free and undistorted" to "The Union shall establish an internal market."
Don't worry though, the Liberal Democrats are going to persuade them to change it back again.
Bishop Hill Mar 21, 2007 EU Tim Worstall has conducted a thorough, and thoroughly admirable fisking of the Independent's risible "50 reasons to praise the EU".
At number 18 the Independent would have us believe that we should love Brussels because of "Europe-wide travel bans on tyrants such as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe".
"So?", replies TW. He might better still have responded "Bollocks!", (as he does to several of the other spurious claims of the Indy. Why? I hear you ask. Because of this:
Edward Chindori-Chininga, one of more than 100 Mugabe regime figures banned from traveling to the EU was observed slipping out of Brussels. He received a visa simply by omitting his middle name on the application, according to the Telegraph.
(H/T Belmont Club)
But, I hear you say, this was just an isolated error.
Not so. The Telegraph also tells us that
Mr Chindori-Chininga is believed to be a regular visitor to France despite the EU travel sanctions.
Indeed, and didn't that dear little socialist, Mr Mugabe visit Paris a few years ago despite the travel ban? Certainly the EU was in favour of the visit. I can't remember if the British government managed to veto it or not. Mugabe certainly went to Rome at one point too.
Bollocks it is, therefore. Or as TW might ask: don't these people have editors?
Bishop Hill Mar 12, 2007 EU DK has a reminder up on his site about the Bowland Dairy Case. The case is so horrific, it's worth reminding ourselves of it. If there are any Liberal Democrats passing this way, I would value your comments.
Bishop Hill
This map is from an official study comparing crime and safety across the EU (warning 1.3Mb pdf file). The darker the colour, the higher the probability of being a victim of crime.
A few highlights:
Bishop Hill Feb 4, 2007 EU Liberalism I've got friends in Germany. As a student, I had a German roommate with whom I shared some wonderful times. I like the Germans I've met. Once I understood it, I like their sense of humour too.
But my God, when I read things like DK's report on the German Presidency's plans for a law on holocaust denial I am horrified by what their government is up to:
[I]t requires member states to prosecute violations, as defined in the document, it requires them to do so under the methods of corpus juris; that is the Continental system whereby you must prove your innocence, a concept that goes against one of the most fundamental tenets of the British justice system.
The Framework also deals with what it calls "Legal persons", which includes companies, charities, etc. Under these provisions, if one of your employees, for instance, says something racist that is reported, your company can be banned from "commercial trading", banned from "receiving public funds" or even compulsorily wound-up.
Or this report (HT: Carlotta) about a German girl who was being home educated, a practise which is illegal in Germany.
She has been removed from her parents' custody, and placed in the Child Psychiatry Unit of the Nuremberg clinic, her father, Hubert Busekros, told the homeschool group.
It's surprising, to say the least, to find anywhere that is less liberal than Blair's Banana Republic. It may just be that Germany is it. The Euro-enthusiasts in our three main parties need to explain what it is about our European colleagues way of doing things that they find so attractive.
