"Very worried"

EU commission president José Manuel Barroso is very worried about global climate talks with less than two months left until governments are due to meet in Denmark to try to seal a deal.

Barroso's remarks came on the last day of negotiations in Bangkok by officials from 180 nations trying to narrow differences over how to share the burden of the fight against climate change and draft a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

"Despite those efforts," Barroso says, "I remain very worried by the progress at this stage of negotiations where we are dangerously close to deadlock if we do not put some more impetus into this process."

One really does wish that the "very worried" Mr Barroso would read the news occasionally - and look at this picture, an unidentified woman walking her dog as early snow fell yesterday in Omaha, Nebraska. Several inches of snow accumulated. Then, at least, he would know why we want to shoot him.

COMMENT THREAD

An "exciting journey"

Fresh from his victory, courtesy of the Tory MEP group, EU Kommisar José Manuel Barroso tells us: "As president of the commission, my party is going to be Europe. Anyone who wants to can come on board in this exciting journey that is the integration of Europe."

"This is the moment of truth," he adds.

And the question is, Mr Barroso, what happens if we do not want to "come on board"? What happens if we don't want to join you on "this exciting journey that is the integration of Europe"?

Here, of course, actions speak louder than words. Flushed with his success, we told, Mr Barroso, in an example of monumental hubris, will this weekend travel to Ireland to campaign for a "yes" vote in the referendum.

At least the Irish have a choice, of a sort, and can tell Borroso - with his unwarranted interference - where to go. As it stands, we have none. But the man has crossed the line. His is the unacceptable, unspeakably smug face of "Europe" (not that any "face" would be acceptable).


There is now a predictable end to the "exciting journey" on which he is embarking ... and never mind the quality, feel the width. It is 7.62mm. If he reads his history books, he should know that that is the rendevous he is choosing.

COMMENT THREAD

Intelligent debate

On the front-page of the world's favourite newspaper, we read the provocative headline: "Even the sceptics are falling in love with Brussels".

This is from an interview with José Manuel Barroso, today given a second term as EU commission president, thanks entirely to the Conservative MEP group who voted for him, thus giving him the necessary majority in the EU parliament. So pleased were they with their success that they stood and applauded when the result of the vote was announced.

But, before he had heard the glad tidings, the Tories' favourite commissioner was warbling to the Telegraph that: "Even British Euro-sceptics are now learning to appreciate the European Union as a bulwark against 'dark forces' that threaten open societies and markets."

Only faux eurosceptics would be stupid enough to fall for that line but it was good enough for Adrian Michaels (pictured), who was so pleased with his brilliant headline that he repeated it on his clog, chortling at the idea of "smoke pouring out of Eurosceptic computer monitors up and down the UK." Look at clever little me, is the message as he happily declares: "I'd be surprised if some of our online readers can type fast enough."

That is Michaels's idea of journalism, preening that, "It's all good debate fodder on day three of our Europe series." He is so "pleased", he tells us, "that people like Barroso are happy to engage with the sceptic crowd and fight their corner in interviews," then throwing in his own little bit of ego-massage by declaring: "Intelligent debate normally beats name calling."

Actually, that is debatable. Winston Churchill was a great one for name-calling, consistently referring to Hitler as "Corporal Hitler" – one of his more favoured jibes. But then the likes Michaels probably comes from the school of journalism that would have been lining up to interview Herr Hitler on 7 June 1944, to ask him for his "take" on the invasion of Europe. "Intelligent debate normally beats name calling," he would have written.

We could, of course, follow the great man and indulge in our own bit of name-calling, putting Michaels down as a "pompous twat". But we don't do that sort of thing on this blog – it upsets some of our readers. But then we don't need to. The picture tells its own story. It is is quite interesting how peoples' faces so often give them away.

COMMENT THREAD

European democracy, eh?

As the European Union member states are lumbering through the ludicrous farce of elections for the Toy Parliament, another aspect of the wondrous system heaves into view. It looks like Commission President Barroso will be re-confirmed in that position for another term, presumably because he has been such a success.

The first inkling I had of it was an article by John Palmer, who "a member of the governing board, and former political director, of the European Policy Centre". There's glory for you, as Humpty-Dumpty said.

This does not prevent Mr Palmer talking the most appalling tosh. He does not like Barroso's reappointment because it is "bad for European democracy". He seems to be under the impression that the elections for the Toy Parliament have anything to do with the choice of Commission President, in the way that a general election would have a great influence on who becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Imagine a general election where the major parties – the "Conservatives" and "Labour" – both have a reasonable chance of emerging victorious. But at the last minute, the Labour party decides to let the Tory leader have a free go at running the next government even before the votes are cast. In an equally bizarre move, the third-largest party, the "Liberals", decide that they too will not fight the election, with a candidate seeking appointment as head of the next administration.

Strange as it may seem, this is exactly the situation facing voters in the European elections this week across the 27 member states of the EU. José Manuel Barroso, the sitting conservative president of the European commission – the supra-national executive of the EU, which alone can propose new laws – has already been endorsed for another term as president by the centre-right European Peoples' party (the equivalent of the Conservatives).

Outrageous. Of course, there is the slight problem that the Commission President is picked by the various politicians behind closed doors and not elected but who is counting.

I wonder what Mr Palmer would say to a scenario in which a country voted in a free and fair referendum against a certain piece of constitutional legislation only to find that it is now required to vote again as the result they returned was the wrong one. Surely that would never happen. The fair name of European democracy would never be sullied in that way. Would it?

COMMENT THREAD

A very worrying development

It is difficult to believe that one could ever have warmed to the current (or any) EU commission president, but the Telegraph's Bruno Waterfield – their latest EU correspondent – has come up trumps, painting a sympathetic picture of José Manuel Barroso.

The occasion is an interview in which, under the heading, "Political correctness is killing our freedoms", Barroso tells us that "Europe's citizens" must be on their guard "against political correctness and moralising politicians". He is concerned that freedom can be the loser in European culture wars over climate change, cheap air travel, Islam and free speech.

"We should be aware," he says, "of people who, sometimes for good reasons, try to establish what I call private moral codes, for this or that, be it climate change, religious behaviour or any kind of social behaviour."

But the absolute corker is his comments on the UK's climate change agenda, which he condemns as a "turn-off". This, he warns, risks intruding into people's lives, threatens individual freedom and could turn voters off the fight against global warming.

He also hails cheap air travel as "a great thing for our civilisation" and expresses grave concerns over fashionable plans, floated by Mr Miliband, for personal carbon rationing and suspects that proposals to restrict CO2 emissions from an individual's activities will lead to intrusive surveillance into private lives.

"I do not see any need to establish these intrusive approaches that may reduce the freedom of our societies," he says. "We have to find the right balance and I believe the right balance is not found if we start giving these kind of personal good or bad behaviour certificates to people."

Barroso's views on tackling global warming, writes Waterfield, also clash with Cameron's plans to introduce green taxes and individual allowances on air travel. "Cheap air travel is great for our civilisation. When we think now that people have the freedom to circulate instead of being confined to a small territory, it is great progress," he says.

This is very worrying indeed, when an EU apparatchik actually seems to be talking more sense than our own politicians. I think I will have to go and lie down.

COMMENT THREAD

"We should not fool ourselves"

Not us, guv... the words come from our old friend, el presidente José Manuel Barroso. He has told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper that the abortive EU constitution does not have any chance of coming into effect – a more or less direct attack on the obsessive navel-gazing of the colleagues.

All that can be salvaged from it are "its values, principles and substance", says the commission president. He believes that the German presidency could take "important steps" quickly to improve the union's ability to make decisions but when it comes to the Angela Merkel's much touted ambition to resurrect the constitution, Barroso is blunt.

I give you an honest answer, he says. The EU constitution in its current form will not come into effect. "We should not fool ourselves. It's important now to maintain its values, its principles and its substance. Above all, we have to improve the decision-making mechanism, and we need to do that as quickly as possible."

This will not, of course, stop media speculation about Merkel’s intentions. If a little thing like the German constitutional court can’t do that, then the words of the commission president are hardly likely to do it.

The fact remains, though, that it has become a recent tradition for incoming presidencies to "talk up" the constitution, only to slide out six months later with the Community no further forward.

Thus did we have the Austrian presidency in 2005, with chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel spelling out Austria's ambition to "breath back some life" into the constitution. Remember his "Sound of Europe"? And before that, Schuessel was saying: "We have promised ourselves that we will restart the negotiations on the constitution," only to pass on the baton to the UK and thence to Finland.

For once, therefore, this blog and the commission president are at one. Much as we would like it to be otherwise – with the opportunity for a referendum that it affords - there is going to be no EU constitution. Take it from the horse's mouth."

COMMENT THREAD

While we were away…

Unfortunately, even if you ignore something as unimportant and as tedious as the European Union, it doesn't go away. We've been trying it here for a few weeks, while we concentrated on important things – but it simply doesn't work.

So, you look up and look around, and there is still that tiresome little Italian, Franco Frattini, the so-called EU "justice" commissioner – a laughable title that actually implies that the EU knows anything about or has anything to do with justice.

Anyhow, as befits his station in life, he is making a nuisance of himself; suggesting that employers who give jobs to illegal immigrants in the European Union should face fines or even imprisonment.

This is according to the Financial Times, which always treats its readers like children. It is telling us that there are "legislative plans being considered by Brussels", stopping short of actually giving us any useful information – like whether it is a formal proposal or just Frattini indulging in one of his many flights of fantasy.

With the appetite whetted, therefore, it's off to Google in an attempt to find out what is really going on – three words in the string should do it – "Frattini", "Europa" and "immigration". The trick is always to include the word "Europa" which gets you inside the EU commission site. It is pointless using the Europa site search engine – like its owners, it is worse than useless.

Anyhow, that string gets us close and with a few tweaks we get to this. It isn't quite want we wanted, but looks interesting. The heading is: "strengthening the comprehensive European migration policy and providing new impetus".

I can't believe I actually wrote that… interesting?! That must be me speaking to my inner nerd.

Then we get to see the phrases, "Migration Support Teams", "European Job Mobility Portals", and "European surveillance system" You know this is important, but the brain starts shrivelling, rebelling at the prospect of digging deeper.

Even though this isn't as bad as some, anyone who writes this stuff – or even thinks about writing this stuff – should have been shot at birth. We are not talking about human being here. They have to be aliens.

The bottom of the page looms and commissioner Frattini invites us to his website for more information about his work. One click and we're there, but the site turns out to be a load of PR bullshit so we go back to whence we came.

A little bit more digging and we find this, and it is definitely what we are looking for: "Strengthening the comprehensive European migration policy". You get the flavour from the first full paragraph:

Dealing effectively with migration pressures in the interest of its Member States and citizens is an absolute priority for the European Union. The policy needs to be cross-border, comprehensive and integrated, involving various policy areas of the EU. Flowing from this recognition and in the light of mounting migratory pressures, the European Commission presented today its Communication "The Global Approach to Migration one year on", containing several new proposals to step up the EU's strategy towards migration. The Communication is presented also in view of the discussions on this issue by the European Council on 14 and 15 December.

Buried in there, also, is the key information. There is a "Communication" (the magic word, we nerds know to look for), and it's called. "The Global Approach to Migration one year on".

The summary which follows tells us that:

The Commission considers that legal migration and integration policies should be brought into the Global Approach more explicitly, while fully respecting the division of competences between the European Community and the Member States.

A power grab is in progress, but we need more detail so it is back to Google to key in the title. Bugger! All we get is a balls-aching speech from Frattini that only a seriously super-nerd would want to read, and the URL back to the site we've just come from. Dead end.

So, we've got a "com" title, but no link and nothing shows up on Google – they haven't put it on the net yet. God! I do hate it when they do that. I could go into the Europa site – where angels fear to tread… it wasn't so bad until they made it user-friendly. But it's gone midnight and I simply can't be arsed - a fishing expedition may take an hour or more. It's been a long day.

That brings us back to the Financial Times story and there may be enough there to enable us to fudge our own piece, giving the impression we know what we're taking about. But no! They're having the same trouble – they haven't seen the "com" either and they're winging it from the press release, with a lot of general, fluffy material.

So there we are folks. Immigration is on the commission's agenda - as if we didn't already know. They're proposing to do something, but we don't know quite what, and they're not in the mood to tell us – except they will fully respect "the division of competences between the European Community and the Member States".

That, we all know, is one of those glib lies, from the same stable as "the cheque's in the post". That's "check", for our American friends, who can't handle fancy spelling like wot we can.

One thing we do learn from the FT though is that the detailed measures will not be announced until next May or June. If only I had read that at the beginning, it would have saved a lot of time. We can go back to sleep on this one, in the full knowledge that, by the time the full proposals come along, they will be cast in stone and it will be the devil's own job changing them. "But you should have commented earlier, Monsieur," they will say.

Did I say that the EU was tedious?

COMMENT THREAD

Muddled thinking

Pity the left-wing Guardian which also happens to be strongly Europhile. Hence it tries to construct a fantasy in which all right wingers are rabid Eurosceptics while all the left-wingers support the project.

Nevertheless, you can see the paper struggling with today's story about Gordon Brown's "right hand man", the treasury minister Ed Balls.

He is to announce that the government is to publish a yearly statement on all European Union spending in the UK as "a first step towards cracking down on waste and fraud." We are also told that he will describe the state of the EU budget as "a disappointment and an embarrassment", following its rejection by auditors for the 12th year running.

Such mildly communautaire action by the treasury minister is then hailed by the paper as evidence of the chancellor and his supporters being "keen to outflank the Tories on Europe", suggesting they will weaken Britain's international influence by isolation, and destroy its ability to lead reform.

It then goes on to remind us that "David Cameron alienated potential allies in Europe by pledging to take Conservatives out of the main centre right grouping of MEPs, albeit in three years time." However, we are told, the EU-loving Mr Balls said this month that it was in Britain's national interest to collaborate more closely with the EU and that Brussels should have more powers to deal with issues such as climate change.

So there you have it. The world view prevails and the Guardian is at peace with itself. It can then allow, through the eyes of el presidente José Manuel Barroso, that Gordon Brown is "sceptical" - though not hostile - about the value of the EU and its work, while the dangerous right winger Cameron is "sceptical" and out to destroy the Union.

One could only wish that the paper had got it right and the Boy really was as painted. As it stands, though, he is probably vastly more in favour of the project than Gordon, which is giving rise to some rather muddled thinking.

COMMENT THREAD

We are sooooo lucky

There was a time – even in the short lifetime of this blog - when European Councils were sort of important.

They are, after all, meetings (currently) of the heads of state and government of the 25 member states of the European Union, comprising the largest single trading block in the world, representing a larger population than the entire United States.

And so it was that the president of the Republic of Finland, Tarja Halonen, and Mr Matti Vanhanen, prime minister, hosted an informal Council which started yesterday and ends today, held in the Sibelius Hall in Lahti, Finland.

Attending yesterday was the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, who was there to discuss energy policy with the EU leaders.

Our own dear leader, Tony Blair – as always – was less than happy in the company of his European colleagues, and tucked himself away at the back during the "family photograph", looking distinctly ill at ease. How far we have come since Tony was the toast of Europe, determined to be at the heart of things, telling all the "colleagues" how to run their economies.

Anyhow, if Tone was, shall we say, somewhat on the margins, the British interest was well represented by none other than our own Guardian newspaper which, during the Friday evening press conference was right in there with a penetrating question for EU commission president José Manuel Barroso (pictured arriving).

"How can you can do business with a man, Vladimir Putin," the egregious Guardian hack demanded, "whose commitment to human rights are so great that he has expressed admiration for the sexual habits of an alleged rapist, the President of Israel?"

We are just sooooo lucky that we have such a diligent media, so fully on the ball, ready to bring us the latest news and analysis from the far-flung shores of the European empire. What would we do without it?

Photos: Council of the European Union

COMMENT THREAD

They haff vays of bringing you down

Brussels is awash with rumours over a claimed tryst between EU enterprise commissioner, Günter Verheugen (62), and his 48-year-old chef de cabinet, Petra Erler – but there is more to this than meets the eye.

The rumours emerged after Mz Erler was appointed to the top job in Verheugen's cabinet last April, taking a healthy hike in her monthly pay - from €9,045 to €11,579 – only then to be photographed hand-in-hand with her boss, walking through the Lithuanian town of Klaipeda during a two-week holiday on the Baltic Coast.

After the Germany's mass circulation daily Bild published the picture, accusations of favouritism surfaced. But, as the English language Deutsche Welle has observed, Erler is eminently suitable for the job. In 1990, she served as state secretary under East Germany's last prime minister Lothar de Maizière. Nine years later, she joined Verheugen at the EU commission to work on the bloc's eastwards expansion and gained an excellent reputation. This, many argue, makes her an obvious choice for the position she now holds.

That Verheugen is suddenly and very visibly in the hot seat, therefore, is thought to be not entirely unrelated to his recent highly publicised complaints about obstructive commission bureaucrats who, he claims, had acquired too much power.

Some observers are now suggested that the Erler case would never have been raised had the commissioner not delivered such a stinging criticism of his own officials. However, others believe that the commissioner's outburst might have been a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from rumours about an affair which were about to break into the big league.

For the time being, though, Deutsche Welle reports that the officials have closed ranks, while el presidente Barroso says all the rules have been observed. Despite this, sources close to the centre are hinting that the palace coup is not over and the issue will not be resolved until there is some blood on the floor – although no one is betting who will be the donor.

COMMENT THREAD

They don't want to know

The untimely death of Guardian journalist and arch Europhile Hugo Young in 2003 at the age of 64 was a cause of real regret to myself and my co-author Christopher Booker. Our book on the history of the European Union, The Great Deception, was then about to be published and the one to measure it against was Young's This Blessed Plot.

During the writing of our book, we dissected the "Plot", exposing its many errors, myths and inconsistencies, fully expecting at some stage that we would be able to debate the issues with Young. But, alas, it was not to be.

Such was Young's prestige, however (which would not have survived our encounter), that his name has been given to an annual memorial lecture. And last night, it is both ironic and fitting that the third such lecture was delivered by José Manuel Barroso, president of the EU commission, the central theme of which was a call for a debate on the European Union.

As we have observed recently, there is clearly some enthusiasm for a discussion on "Europe". But Barroso's target was not the enthusiasts on either side of the divide but the sludgy mush in the middle – the uncommitted morass that Alterio Spinelli once called the "swamp".

That "swamp" currently is occupied by Gordon Brown and David Camoron, both of whom last night were challenged by Barroso to decide whether Britain should play a leading role in Europe.

He was thus speaking to the two men who are likely to shape British politics over the next decade and he was effectively asking them to demonstrate whether they are fully committed to Britain's membership of the EU. "The United Kingdom will always have influence in Europe - its size, its economic power and its international network will ensure that," he said. "So the question is does the UK want to shape a positive agenda, which reflects its own agenda, or be dragged along as a reluctant partner? Do you want to drive from the centre or sulk from the periphery?"

Barroso's lecture, entitled, "Seeing through the Hallucinations: Britain and Europe in the 21st century," was a deliberate echo of what Young called the "hallucinations, both positive and negative, that have driven the British debate for so long". Using these as his basis, Barroso declared an "important truth" – that "the EU needs the UK".

"It is not a question any longer of being for or against Europe," he said, "It is a question of how to reform Europe. I do not ask you, I do not ask anyone, to love Europe. I ask you to demand more of Europe and to give more in return."

That is typical of the divide. Barroso is not actually interested in a debate, except on his terms – where the question of continued support for the EU is a given. We are not allowed, in his book, even to consider whether the EU is a "Good Thing".

The tragedy for us and the Europhiles alike, however, is that the "swamp" does not want a debate at all - any debate on any terms. Neither Gordon nor Dave really want to know.

COMMENT THREAD

After the hubris…

At the beginning of this year, it looked like yet another one of those hubristic fantasies, with the Austrian presidency calling for the establishment of a European equivalent to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Months down the road, it now looks as if, as we say in Yorkshire (and doubtless elsewhere), the EU has eyes bigger than its belly. Despite the huge ambitions of the political classes, neither national governments nor industry have been interested enough actually to come up with any dosh, leaving el presidente José Manuel Barroso, scrambling for funds.

According to the Financial Times, the poor man had anticipated $1 billion to flow from business but has now accepted he is unlikely to receive a cent from the private sector before 2010. The only way Barroso can get the venture off the ground, therefore, is by raiding regional and research budgets to the tune of €2.4bn

That, we are told, is likely to be unpopular and officials are suggesting that the money would be better spent on existing projects. Despite this, such is the determination of the commission to create another European "symbol" - especially as next year is the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome - that Barroso is likely to ignore the reservations and go for the full Monte. But, as we keep observing, after hubris comes…

COMMENT THREAD

On hacking back the jungle

The BBC website is trying its best, with a short squib headed, "EU 'has to slash business rules'".

The piece is publicising a letter from Gerrit Zalm and Bendt Bendtsen, respectively the Dutch and Danish ministers of finance. They are complaining that European businesses suffer from unnecessary red tape while also noting that the EU's programme to simplify regulation has conspicuously failed.

The programme is being run by Günter Verheugen, vice-president of the EU commission, together with the president, José Manuel Barroso, with Verheugen calling it "the flagship of the Commission". But, over the summer, results have remained somewhat modest. The commission's plan was to simplify 54 laws this year, but only five have been tackled.

This explains why, less than a week ago, Verheugen was attacking the "out of control" EU bureaucrats, arguing that they had gained too much power in the commission.

He also bemoaned the "constant power struggle between high-ranking officials and commissioners", observing that the last ten years had brought the civil servants so much power that the most important political task of the 25 commissioners had become controlling them. Commissioners had to "be extremely careful that the important decisions are taken in their weekly meeting and not by officials among themselves", he said.

Verheugen called for a "new political culture within the commission" with more power for the commissioners, noting that in Germany, a minister could appoint or replace his senior staff, but not in the commission.

Surprisingly, a commission spokesman did not entirely agree that there was a problem. Speaking on behalf of Barroso, he told reporters that Verheugen's remarks were part of the "very normal, necessary creative tension you get when change is deemed to be necessary". As for the drive against red tape, the spokesman said Barroso was "perfectly satisfied with how the administration is responding, while being clear that we can and must go further".

Interestingly, with the UK party conference season just over, it might be useful to recall the 1992 Conservative Party conference when John Major appointed Michael Heseltine to take charge of his deregulation campaign. Said Major,

I have asked Michael Heseltine to take responsibility for cutting through this burgeoning maze of regulations. Who better for hacking back the jungle? Come on, Michael. Out with your club. On with your loin cloth. Swing into them!

Since there is clearly a problem with the commission and Major's appointment was such a huge success, the EU should perhaps emulate our illustrious former prime minister. Do you think Margot would volunteer for the loin cloth?

COMMENT THREAD

Disingenuous, or what?

EU commission president José Manuel Barroso's has called for "sweeping reforms" before any EU enlargement, declaring that, "I think it would be unwise to bring in more member states apart from Romania and Bulgaria, which will be joining us soon, before we have solved the institutional question."

The phrase, "institutional question" is, of course, Euro-code for the EU constitution, made clear by Barroso’s further statement when he dismissed the idea of small treaty changes, insisting any further enlargement "is the time to take a decision on the constitutional treaty."

Speaking in Berlin, it seems that the commission president has in mind, amongst other things, "more coherence in external relations" – another Euro-code, this one meaning an EU foreign minister.

One wonders though whether Barroso has thought this through – or whether he is being disingenuous. Given that the French rejection of the EU constitution was certainly linked to enlargement, and was to some extent a proxy vote against Turkish membership. Overtly to link the need for a new constitution with further enlargement, therefore, has to be a certain way of ensuring that any attempts to agree a new treaty are rejected.

COMMENT THREAD

EU in the frame

Leaving it a bit late, this time at least the EU president José Manuel Barroso has come to the support of Pope Benedict XVI's, defending his remarks about Islam. According to yesterday's edition of the German newspaper Weltam Sonntag, he says he is disappointed the leaders of Europe did not defend the Pontiff.

Islamic extremists, adds Barroso, are a threat, but people cannot confuse tolerance with political correctness by putting others' values above their own. Barroso also said the problem does not lie with the Pope's comments, but with the violent reaction of extremists.

This example of "solidarity" is more evidence of collusion between the Vatican and Brussels, yet more indications that the EU is a Catholic plot. Why else would a former Maoist communist spring so readily to the defence of the head of the Roman Catholic church?

COMMENT THREAD

It ain't Brussels, stoopid!

We (or I) – according to one of our revered forum members - should be killing the fatted calf over the leader in today’s Telegraph, headed, "Brussels will never take no for an answer". We – or so we are told - all have said this for years, "but when the by-far-the-biggest non-redtop endorses it," it is a cause for celebration.

Frankly, I'd sooner slaughter the leader-writer. It is precisely this type of muddle-headed, superficial diatribe that confuses the issue and makes it so hard to progress the debate.

Consider, if you will, the opening offer: "You may be outraged by the EU's declared intention to revive the European constitution. But, if you have been reading these columns over the past 12 months, you will not be surprised."

Leave aside the little bit of self-promotion – you will not be surprised (but much better informed) if you read this blog, not least that the intention is to delay any attempt at reviving the constitution, rather than any confirmed intention to bring it back to life.

The substantive issue here is the use of the "EU". As a generic term, this can mean all sorts of things and we all use it as a convenient short-hand. But, in this context - as the next part of the leader makes clear - the reference is to the "leaders of the 25 member nations". It is they, according to the Telegraph, who "have pledged to ratify the main parts of the document by 2009".

In other words – no, in the exact words – it is not "Brussels", as such that is doing this, but the democratically elected leaders of our own governments who are hatching this tryst. One of those is Tony Blair who, in any case, is unlikely still to be leader in 2009 but, if his successor takes the same line, then our problem lies not in Brussels, but at home.

Further, it is not the "leaders" who ratify treaties – they sign them. Ratification is down to the parliaments, with or without referendums. Leader can propose – parliament disposes.

On the slender basis thus established by our leader-writer, however, he launches off into the stratosphere, telling us that "there is never a Plan B in Brussels; Plan A is simply re-submitted over and over again until it is accepted." That maybe the case, but it may not. At the moment, plan A is actually stalled and there is no sure way of working out what happens next. The "colleagues" are at as much of a loss as everyone else.

To "prove" the point, though, The Telegraph tells us that "with or without formal ratification, most of the policies and institutions proposed by the constitution have been, or are being, enacted anyway: the European Defence Agency, the External Borders Agency, the Human Rights Agency, the EU foreign ministry and diplomatic corps, the European Public Prosecutor, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Space Programme." Therefore, "the EU … is behaving as if the French and Dutch electorates had voted "Yes" and the constitution were already in force."

Errr… no. What is happening is a lot more subtle, and more complex. For sure, we have the European Defence Agency, but this has been set up not as a community institution but as an intergovernmental agency. It reports via Solana to the Council and relies for its existence of voluntary annual subventions from the member states. In terms of the Monnet method, it is an aberration and, to the integrationalist orthodoxy, a dangerous one at that.

Similarly, while the commission is providing administrative support to the External Borders Agency, its "teeth" are supplied by member states and its continued existence depends on co-operation between member states, with the Council at the helm. We do not have a KGB-type force wearing the ring of stars, answerable to Brussels.

The same intergovernmental framework applies to the space programme, again funded by voluntary contributions from member states – which is why the Galileo programme is in so much trouble. The commission would like control but it remains outside its grasp.

We saw the same with the "diplomatic corps", certainly slated as a backdoor attempt to introduce the constitution, and worrying in its own right. But, in the final analysis, the plan relies on the voluntary co-operation of the member states. And, what can be given, can be taken away.

What is happening, therefore, is a subtle but important shift in the very nature of the European Union. While the constitution was supposed to consolidate and extend the powers of the commission, entrenching the Monnet method – even bringing the European Council fully into the institutional structure – its failure has given a boost to the rival and instable process of intergovernmentalism.

In that important respect, therefore, the constitution, as devised, is not being enacted. It is, in strict community terms, being subverted. If the commission president was more versed in the orthodoxies of the Monnet method, alarm bells would be ringing, but Barroso is going with the flow. It has thus been left to former commission president Jacques Delors to accuse member state leaders of driving the Union into its "worst ever crisis". In his own terms, he is right to do so.

From all this though, it is possible to gauge the complexities and subtleties of a game, the nature of which The Telegraph seems to be entirely unaware. In its ignorance, it rehearses the one-dimensional stereotype. "Brussels" it says, behaves this way "because, in short, that is what it has been designed to do."

Thus follows a "Janet and John" dissertation of the basics of the engrenage process – without, of course, that term being used - with a concluding peroration which asks, "How much longer can decent democrats subject themselves to such a system?"

And therein lies the unacknowledged paradox. The system is being hijacked by those self-same "democrats" – our very own leaders, who subject themselves to the system - and increasingly run it - because it suits them. They are our problem, more so as the ways of the Council, which they employ, are even more secretive than those of the commission. Strangely, they are Brussels' problem as well.

COMMENT THREAD

Another opportunity to be ignored

A particularly ill-informed piece on the website of EU Observer tells us: "National parliaments get say on EU laws".

Chirps Honor Mahony, who really should know better: "National parliaments are to start getting an unprecedented say on emerging EU laws, with one seasoned observer noting that it could be 'revolutionary'."

This is one of the outcomes of the European Council which has requested the commission "to duly consider comments by national parliaments" on proposed EU laws. In the future the commission will "make all new proposals and consultation papers directly available to national parliaments, inviting them to react so as to improve the process of policy formation", say the conclusions of the two-day summit on Brussels.

The genesis of this lies with president José Manuel Barroso, who made the proposal in May, supposedly "as part of Brussels' attempt to carry out reform that citizens can directly relate to." It resembles the so-called "yellow card" procedure proposed in the EU Constitution stating that the commission should review a legislative proposal, if at least one third of national parliaments believe the proposal falls outside EU competencies.

Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schussel is cited as saying that "national parliaments are going to have a far greater role to play" and Jens-Peter Bonde is the one who says it could "revolutionise" EU law-making - depending on "whether national parliaments make proper use of the facility."

If Bonde stopped to think for one minute, he would appreciate that parliaments – in theory at least – already have sovereign powers and can, if they are minded, reject any EU legislation. They can demand clarification, both directly and through their own governments, and are entirely free to dictate and enforce their own scrutiny arrangements.

Thus, to give parliaments a "power" they already have, and then to suck them into a procedure determined by the commission, subtly undermines them, turning them into supplicants, subordinate to an unelected supranational authority.

Yet, all we get by way of criticism recorded by Honor Mahony is a complaint that the European Council draft conclusions were watered down. Originally, the proposal was that the commission should "take into account" any comments by national parliaments, when it now reads that it should "duly consider".

And, since the commission, under the procedure of its own devising, is by no means obliged to change any of its proposals once it has "taken into account" any comments, one commentator from the Ind-Dem group – which funds EU Observer - remarked that this is simply another opportunity to be ignored.

COMMENT THREAD

Still navel gazing

While US airpower was wowing the world, a sad group of little men were meeting in Brussels to discuss how to "boost" the credibility of the EU.

Amongst them was El Presidente José Manuel Barroso, lamenting the sad fact that "Europe is still punching under its weight." Perhaps some kind person should take him aside and whisper in his ear that you gain credibility by being credible.

Typically, the BBC described this as the commission unveiling plans "designed to strengthen the EU's role on the world stage", but there is absolutely no truth in the rumour that it plans to buy a squadron of F-16s equipped with GBU-38.

Instead, it is going for "better co-operation" between with the Council, allowing EU officials to attend national diplomatic training schemes and an "enhanced programme" of exchanges between the commission, member states' diplomatic services, and the Council's secretariat.

For the pièce de resistance, the commission is also suggesting that it and the Council secretariat should produce more joint strategy papers, as well as co-ordinating more closely in crisis management, while having top officials abroad taking on a dual role as head of the commission delegation, and special representative of the Council.

All of this is aimed at sending stronger and more co-ordinated messages to the EU's "foreign partners", to be achieved by "harnessing the synergies between all the actors involved".

And that will really get al-Qaida squitting in its knickers.

COMMENT THREAD

Are there no depths…?

We thought they were getting pretty desperate when they came up with the idea of a song and dance routine for "Europe" but, in recruiting Bob the Builder to their cause, but they are surely plumbing the very depths.

But that is precisely what the EU commission is doing, according to Justin Stares in today’s Telegraph, using him as “the latest weapon” to convince children to help to save the world from global warming.

Our Bob is to take part in a publicity stunt during an energy ministers' meeting in Luxembourg, where he will extol the virtues of home insulation to help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, all on the back of the commission's climate change initiative launched last week.

However, environmentalists are less than impressed with the commission president's conversion to the cause as they have noted that he drives gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive VW Touareg – that is when he is not being chauffeured to work in his top-of-the-range Mercedes limousine.

Demonstrators at the commission headquarters in Brussels last week asked how Mr Barroso could expect children to observe new environmental guidelines when his vehicle churns out almost double the amount of carbon dioxide the commission wants to see European cars emit by 2008.

Barroso's response is that "Brussels" is trying to encourage a change in behaviour without being moralistic. "We never said we were perfect," he said. And he can say that again.

Anyone doing the Brussels-Strasbourg run at the start of the EU parliament's plenary week will see a procession of limousines cruising down the motorways, empty apart from their chauffeurs, making the trip to the French regional capital. These are the commissioners' cars, sent from Brussels while their masters jet in to the local airport, thence to be met by their cars and ferried to their top-class hotels in town.

The MEPs are a little better – but not much. They are met at the airport by a luxury coach, which is driven down from Luxembourg for the week, but for the main part, running to and from the parliament, they use chauffeur-driven Renault limousines, supplied locally.

For a supposedly "green" organisation, however, car sharing is strictly forbidden – at least when it comes to MEPs sharing their cars with their staff who are going the same direction. They (the staff) are supposed to take the rickety and often overcrowded bus or, when it ceases running – incredibly early in the evening – wait in the lengthy queue for a taxi into town.

I did once write to the "service" - as the parliament administration is called – asking if we were supposed to doff our caps or touch our forelocks as our masters swept by in the splendid isolation of their luxury limousines, but never got an answer. Now they have recruited Bob the Builder, though, perhaps the current batch of serfs can hitch a ride on his JCB.

After all, Barroso is at pains to tell us of his "green" initiative, "This is not a moralistic campaign. We don't have a totalitarian mentality. We don't want to control the private life of every citizen. It's up to each person to take the measures he wishes." Except for car sharing, of course.

COMMENT THREAD

We can all save the climate

What do Manneken Pis and Johann Strauss II have in common? (No, since you ask, Strauss played the violin.) According to the BBC they will both, together with other statues around Europe, be dressed in t-shirts with the following message:

Showing the Earth in the universe, with a thermostat attached to it measuring its rising temperature, it includes the message: "You control climate change. Turn down. Switch off. Recycle. Walk".

Yes, it's another wizard idea from the Commission and its oleaginous president Barroso, who managed to get out of his expensive limo before he went into his expenisvely run office in order to give Europeans the message. (Now, that I think of it, the message may have been given actually inside one of those luxuriously appointed offices.)

The message is that we can all stop climate change. The mere fact that this has never happened before since the earth has existed does not deter our gallant Commissars. It stands to reason that people could not stop the mini-ice age, which started in the fourteenth century or prevent its cyclical end with the gradual warming up from the beginning of the nineteenth. They did not have the ultimate weapon – the European Union with its Commission.

Of course, both those statues are quite small. Will there be t-shirts for the bulldog-like Churchill in Parliament Square or General Napier in Trafalgar Square? In any case, don't know about the Manneken but I can't see Johann Strauss II being too pleased with the whole idea.

Inevitably, there is a website, whose purpose it is to educate people on climate change and what they can do about it. As it happens, education is the last thing the Commission and whoever thought of this latest whizz have in mind. If they did they would publish a great deal more about the scientific debates that are raging all over the world.

They would, for example, refer to a recent article in the Washington Times, which followed the arguments of several highly respected hurricane scientists, who cannot agree whether the severe weather of 2004 and 2005 around the southern coast of the United States is cyclical or the result of temperature change in the Indian Ocean.

Well, scientists may disagree, but Al Gore in his private plane and Commission President Barroso in his limousine know it for a fact: climate change means global warming, caused enirely by people using electric bulbs that are too bright, overfilling their kettles and not switching off the heating when they go out.

Oddly enough, the website does not mention the letter 60 Canadian scientists sent to the Prime Minister, in which they explained that Kyoto and all that went with it was not a sensible way of dealing with environmental problems.

No mention of the highly respected New Zealand scientists who cast doubt on the whole idea that it is human activity that is causing climate change, which does not happen to be any more dramatic than past experience.

No mention of the recent findings that the average temperature of the earth went up by no more than 0.7°C in the last 150 years and has, it appears, stopped rising in the last few years altogether.

Instead of which we get the following tendentious and scaremongering introduction:

The Earth is rapidly getting warmer. This change in the climate threatens serious and even catastrophic disruption to our economies, societies and to our natural environment. The warming is being mainly caused by 'greenhouse gases' that are released by human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. In the atmosphere, these gases trap the sun's heat in the same way as a greenhouse.

Even if it were true, switching light bulbs off is not going to make any difference. It is, after all, a truism that the richer a country is economically, the better its environment is and the readier it is to deal with the inevitable climatic disasters.

Compare and contrast the effect Katrina and the other hurricanes had on the United States last year to the effect their weaker brethren had had on the same area at the beginning of the twentieth century. The same hurricanes that cause the odd problem in Florida, reasonably quickly dealt with, devastate a place like Haiti, killing thousands of people and destroying what there is of an economy.

Since climatic changes are unpredictable and cannot be explained by one factor alone, the sensible thing would be to allow economic growth to continue in the West and to encourage it in other countries, so we can all deal with whatever the weather might throw at us. But to acknowledge that would be to deny the whole basis of "thinking" as shown by the Commission, and the scaremongering "environmentalists".

Entertainingly enough, the press release that tells us about this new and, no doubt, extremely expensive project, says this:

"You control climate change" is the title of an awareness raising campaign that European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas will launch today in Brussels The campaign challenges individuals to make small changes to their daily routine in order to achieve significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

It offers a wealth of practical and easy-to-do tips while aiming to give people a sense of personal responsibility and empowerment and help them contribute to the fight against climate change. Households in the EU are responsible for some 16% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, most of which comes from the production and use of energy. EU Member States will be launching the campaign at national level over the next few days.

Fascinating. The Commission is the organization that has been lambasted repeatedly by the Court of Auditors for, among other things, having a culture of no responsibility. Nobody can be found who will take responsibility for anything.

Slightly more worryingly

The campaign also targets secondary school pupils. The Europa Diary distributed in more than 1.1 million copies at the beginning of each school year will include a section on climate change in September 2006. It will encourage students to sign a pledge to reduce their CO2 emissions, providing them with a form to track their efforts. This material will also be available on the website.

While, for the most part, school children pay little attention to what they are told at school, they are vulnerable to seemingly idealistic views and have no real understanding that these are not based on any real scientific proof.

What is so puzzling about the whole venture is the timing. Why now? Why go into overdrive about climate change, global warming, saving of energy just as scientists who have found it difficult to get a hearing in the past for their non-consensus views, are making ever louder noises debating, even denying the that consensus?

Not only is the Commission getting into a real tizz. Over on Daily Ablution, Scott Burgess has been following the saga of Johann Hari's near libellous comments about Björn Lomborg and the Independent's refusal even to acknowledge the latter's attempts to publish the truth.

Hizonner the Mayor of London is threatening to introduce "statutory carbon emission targets" even though he has no very clear idea of what that is or how such targets can be enforced.

Above all, we have the hysteria exhibited by the stars, moguls, critics and other hangers on at Cannes, most of whom have flown there by private planes and whose yachts guzzle up quite a large proportion of the earth's fuels, going into raptures over that old phony, Al Gore, whose own "humvee days" have long ago turned into decades. Think how much energy we could save if we did not have Al Gore.

As for the scientific debates, they are getting nastier with various media personalities weighing in and accusing the "heretics" of all kinds of sins instead of answering their points.

My own guess is that it is precisely because the so-called consensus is falling apart that its promoters are getting hysterical.

Kyoto is chuntering to its end with no visible effect. The most polluting countries (with Russia's exception) have not even bothered to sign up; those who have signed up have not reduced their emissions and, in some cases, have increased them; the only country whose emissions have gone down is the wicked United States; and new ideas of how to deal with climatic problems, based on developing technology, are gaining ground.

If you add to that the ever louder grumbling in the ranks of international scientists, you can quite understand why the Commission wants to make a last stand for global warming and personal accountability (though not, of course, their own).

COMMENT THREAD