The heroes of not long ago

Sometimes it is hard to believe that my generation can recall a time, not so long ago, when the United States had a great President, the United Kingdom a great Prime Minister and the Catholic Church a great Pope. As it happens, I am an admirer (without being a Catholic, so no accusations of conspiracy, please) of the present Pope and think that the Catholic Church will probably do well under his leadership. I have less faith in the incumbents of the other two positions.

John O’Sullivan’s book “The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister”, subtitled “Three Who Changed the World”, published last year in the US is now available in Britain. It covers the last years of the Cold War, the period when, with extraordinary fortuity, the West was led by three giants.

There is, as O’Sullivan points out in the book (and did so again at the British launch last week), a curious parallel between the three. For various reasons they and all around them were convinced that they would not be able to reach the top position in their chosen field for somewhat peculiar reasons. Partly the reasons had to do with age (Reagan) or sex (Thatcher) but partly it was because they were too much of what they were supposed to represent. Reagan was “too American”, Thatcher was “too Conservative” and Karel Wojtyla was “too Catholic”. Not much room for the middle ground there.

The three achieved their positions of power and responsibility within a relatively short time. Karel Wojtyla was elected to be Pope in October 1978 and took the name of John Paul II; Margaret Thatcher was elected in May 1979 becoming Britain’s first woman Prime Minister on May 4; Ronald Reagan was elected in November 1980, taking office in January 1981.

There were other parallels, not least the fact that all three narrowly escaped with their lives in assassination attempts. John O’Sullivan describes what might be viewed as a series of coincidences, though he chooses to see it otherwise at the beginning of Chapter Three, entitled “Did God Guide the Bullets?”

If life were a supernatural thriller, the next plot twists would have been expected. Twenty-six months separated the elections of John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher began her premiership roughly in between. Fewer than three months (to be precise, seventy days) separated Reagan’s election and the attempt on his life by John Hinckley on March 30, 1981. John Paul II narrowly survived an attempted assassination a mere forty-three days later, in May 13. And three years later Thatcher escaped unharmed when an IRA bomb intended to kill her exploded in the Grand Hotel in Brighton on October 12, 1984, killing five people and wounding many others, including her close friend and ally Norman Tebbit.

There is an almost cinematic neatness about this series of crimes. In The Omen or The Exorcist they would be readily explained as the forces of Satan seeking to destroy the apostles of hope before they could do too much good (though a more formulaic film director than God would have insisted that Satan move his attempt on Thatcher’s life up to 1981). This slightly eerie impression is reinforced by the extraordinary narrowness of the escape of all three intended victims. At least two of those intended victims believed that God had intervened to preserve their lives, and guided their later action by the light of that belief.

Assassinations have sometimes altered the course of history; the First World War arose from one. On these occasions, it was the failure of assassination that may have altered history.

The book traces the preceding and subsequent careers of the President, the Pope and the Prime Minister, laying special emphasis on the Cold War and the fight against the Soviet Union with its many tentacles. It is worth reading this book if only to remind oneself of the many, seemingly disparate problems, crisis, upheavals and wars, that were, in reality, caused by the activity of the Soviet Politburo and its minions in various countries.

It is, as it happens, worth reading the book, anyway. Some time ago, on another site, I described it as the “must-read” for all conservatives. Actually, it will be the “must-read” for all those who are interested by the way the Cold War was won (even if we do seem to be losing the peace) and to whom the ideas and ideals of the West are dear even when the actual events seem to be going the wrong way.

The story weaves its way through public and private events, relying on written accounts and personal reminiscences, not least those of O'Sullivan himself, former Daily Telegraph journalist and former speech writer to the Iron Lady. In case we have forgotten, there is a good deal about the sheer venom that all three had to suffer from throughout the years of political power and, in the case of Reagan and Thatcher, afterwards. The whirligig of time brings its own. Who will remember all those silly snobbish comments about Thatcher being a grocer's daughter and, therefore, rather vulgar or Reagan being nothing but a second-rate Hollywood actor (which is untrue in itself - he was much better than that)?

One of the extraordinary aspects of this book, and it is a tribute to the author, is that I found it an exciting read, despite remembering very clearly all the major and many of the minor events described in it. What is going to happen next, one keeps asking oneself, while knowing full well the answer.

Let me quote some words of Ronald Reagan’s (observant readers of this blog know that I am something of a fan of his) from the speech he made to a group of World War II veterans at Pointe du Hoc, on June 6, 1984:

Here in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: “I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.”

Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor, and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.

Who could put it any better? As it happens, one of the Great Three is still around and was present at the launch, looking extremely well in a purple outfit, ready to talk to anyone who wanted to and equally ready to sign the book for anyone who plucked up courage to ask. (Oh yes, the author did get a look-in.)

It is, I cannot help feeling, up to us to ensure that the legacy of the President, the Pope and the Prime Minister is not dissipated. Yes, I know, the first question that will be asked is "who is this we, paleface".

The limits of power

Even with the best will in the world, it would be difficult to send in foreign troops to Kenya, to help the authorities to quell the violence. But as John O'Shea - the chief executive of the Irish aid agency Goal – prepares to evacuate all staff from the Kenyan capital city due to the worsening security crisis, he is calling for direct EU intervention.

Considering how long it has taken the EU not to put troops into Chad, however, John O'Shea is being a tad optimistic if he believes that the EU could put a force in this side of Easter – next year.

But an indication of how difficult that would be politically comes from the Irish foreign affairs minister Dermot Ahern, who has dismissed O'Shea's calls outright. He points out that any Irish army involvement as part of an EU peace-enforcement group would require "triple-lock approval" of the Oireachtas (the president of Ireland and the two houses of parliament), the Government and the UN.

Meanwhile, the EU's putative foreign minister, Javier Solana, is going to the source of real power, the United States, suggesting a joint mission to Kenya "to assess the unrest" after the disputed re-election of President Mwai Kibaki. But, such is Solana's grip on reality that he is not able to define the exact "mandate" of any mission. It seems he has in mind a joint envoy or team of envoys, to carry out a fact-finding mission.

Whatever else, possibly the last thing on this earth the Kenyan authorities need at this time is a group of self-important "envoys", with all the security complications that that implies. But, short of a rapid reaction force with real teeth, there is not a great deal more the EU can do. Once again, the limits of power are only too apparent.

COMMENT THREAD

Stolen from our pockets

What this means is that we borrow money off the market – for which we pay interest - to lend to the IMF. But what may have been missed from the earlier post is that the bailout funds are to be used, inter alia, to buy up Greek debt – from a nation that intends to default.

Thus, in reality, we are buying up debt with borrowed money, to give to an organisation which will lend it to a "client" (or clients) that will never repay it. In effect, that makes this money a £9 billion "gift" from British taxpayers. It will be given to the financiers (mainly banks) who lent money to the Greek government, to help them cut their losses.

Subrosa has more about the loathsome giveaway by the people who call themselves our representatives. All we need now is a reason for not rising up and slaughtering them. It had better be really good.

UPDATE: THE HALL OF SHAME

These are the MPs who voted to give away our money ... that's £9.8 billion, or £35,766,000 each that they owe us - the £36 million club.

Adams, Nigel; Afriyie, Adam; Aldous, Peter; Alexander, Danny; Amess, David; Andrew, Stuart; Bacon, Richard; Baker, Norman; Baldwin, Harriett; Barclay, Stephen; Barwell, Gavin; Bebb, Guto; Beith, Alan; Bellingham, Henry; Beresford, Paul; Berry, Jake; Bingham, Andrew; Birtwistle, Gordon; Blackman, Bob; Blackwood, Nicola; Blunt, Crispin; Boles, Nick; Bradley, Karen; Brake, Tom; Bray, Angie; Brazier, Julian; Brine, Steve; Brokenshire, James; Brooke, Annette; Bruce, Fiona; Bruce, Malcolm; Buckland, Robert; Burns, Conor; Burns, Simon; Burrowes, David; Burstow, Paul; Burt, Lorely; Byles, Dan; Cairns, Alun; Campbell, Menzies; Carmichael, Alistair; Carmichael, Neil; Chishti, Rehman; Clark, Greg; Clarke, Kenneth; Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey; Coffey, Thérèse; Collins, Damian; Colvile, Oliver; Cox, Mr Geoffrey; Crabb, Stephen; Crockart, Mike; Crouch, Tracey; Davey, Edward; Davies, David T. C.(Monmouth); Davies, Glyn; de Bois, Nick; Dinenage, Caroline; Djanogly, Jonathan; Doyle-Price, Jackie; Duddridge, James; Duncan, Alan; Duncan Smith, Iain; Ellis, Michael; Ellison, Jane; Ellwood, Tobias; Elphicke, Charlie; Evans, Graham; Evans, Jonathan; Evennett, David; Fabricant, Michael; Fallon, Michael; Featherstone, Lynne; Field, Mark; Foster, Don; Fox, Liam; Francois, Mark; Freer, Mike; Fullbrook, Lorraine; Gale, Roger; Garnier, Edward; Garnier, Mark; Gauke, David; George, Andrew; Gibb, Nick; Glen, John; Goodwill, Robert; Gove, Michael; Graham, Richard; Grant, Helen; Grayling, Chris; Green, Damian; Greening, Justine; Gummer, Ben; Gyimah, Sam; Hames, Duncan; Hammond, rh Mr Philip; Hammond, Stephen; Hancock, Matthew; Hancock, Mike; Hands, Greg; Harper, Mark; Harrington, Richard; Harris, Rebecca; Hart, Simon; Haselhurst, Alan; Heald, Oliver; Heath, David; Heaton-Harris, Chris; Hemming, John; Hendry, Charles; Hinds, Damian; Hoban, Mark; Hollingbery, George; Holloway, Adam; Hopkins, Kris; Howarth, Gerald; Howell, John; Hughes, Simon; Huhne, Chris; Hunt, Jeremy; Huppert, Julian; Hurd, Nick; Jackson, Stewart; James, Margot; Javid, Sajid; Jenkin, Bernard; Johnson, Gareth; Johnson, Joseph; Jones, Andrew; Jones, David; Jones, Marcus; Kawczynski, Daniel; Kennedy, Charles; Kirby, Simon; Laing, Eleanor; Lamb, Norman; Lancaster, Mark; Latham, Pauline; Laws, David; Leadsom, Andrea; Lee, Phillip; Leech, John; Lefroy, Jeremy; Leslie, Charlotte; Letwin, Oliver; Lewis, Brandon; Liddell-Grainger, Ian; Lidington, David; Lilley, Peter; Lloyd, Stephen; Lord, Jonathan; Loughton, Tim; Luff, Peter; Lumley, Karen; Macleod, Mary; Maude, Francis; May, Theresa; Maynard, Paul; McIntosh, Anne; McLoughlin, Patrick; McPartland, Stephen; Mensch, Louise; Menzies, Mark; Mercer, Patrick; Metcalfe, Stephen; Miller, Maria; Milton, Anne; Mitchell, Andrew; Moore, Michael; Mordaunt, Penny; Morgan, Nicky; Morris, Anne Marie; Morris, David; Morris, James; Mosley, Stephen; Mowat, David; Mulholland, Greg; Mundell, David; Munt, Tessa; Murray, Sheryll; Murrison, Andrew; Neill, Robert; Newmark, Mr Brooks; Nokes, Caroline; Norman, Jesse; O'Brien, Mr Stephen; Ollerenshaw, Eric; Paice, Mr James; Parish, Neil; Patel, Priti; Paterson, Owen; Penning, Mike; Penrose, John; Phillips, Stephen; Pickles, Eric; Pincher, Christopher; Poulter, Dr Daniel; Prisk, Mr Mark; Pugh, John; Raab, Dominic; Randall, rh Mr John; Rees-Mogg, Jacob; Reid, Alan; Robathan, Andrew; Robertson, Hugh; Robertson, Mr Laurence; Rogerson, Dan; Rudd, Amber; Ruffley, Mr David; Russell, Bob; Rutley, David; Sanders, Adrian; Sandys, Laura; Scott, Mr Lee; Selous, Andrew; Shapps, Grant; Sharma, Alok; Shelbrooke, Alec; Simmonds, Mark; Simpson, Keith; Skidmore, Chris; Smith, Chloe; Smith, Henry (recorded as voting in both lobbies); Smith, Julian; Smith, Robert; Soames, Nicholas; Soubry, Anna; Spencer, Mark; Stephenson, Andrew; Stevenson, John; Stewart, Iain; Stewart, Rory; Streeter, Gary; Stride, Mel; Stunell, Andrew; Sturdy, Julian; Swales, Ian; Swayne, Desmond; Swinson, Jo; Swire, Hugo; Syms, Mr Robert; Thurso, John; Timpson, Edward; Tomlinson, Justin; Tredinnick, David; Truss, Elizabeth; Tyrie, Andrew; Uppal, Paul; Vaizey, Edward; Vara, Shailesh; Villiers, Theresa; Walker, Robin; Wallace, Ben; Walter, Mr Robert; Ward, David; Watkinson, Angela; Weatherley, Mike; Webb, Steve; Wharton, James; Wheeler, Heather; White, Chris; Willetts, David; Williams, Mark; Williams, Roger; Williams, Stephen; Williamson, Gavin; Willott, Jenny; Wilson, Rob; Wright, Jeremy; Wright, Simon; Yeo, Tim; Young, George; Zahawi, Nadhim; Mark Hunter; Bill Wiggin.

Live they ever so long, they cannot repay us for what they have done.

COMMENT: FINANCIAL CRISIS THREAD

Corbett versus O’ Brien

Jon Humphrys interviews Richard Corbett MEP and Neil O’Brien, campaign director of the "Vote-No" campaign on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme this morning.

JH: How much do you know about the European constitution? Enough to have a clear view on whether it’s a good thing for this country? Well a poll is about to be published that shows we’re pretty ignorant, not just here but around Europe for that matter.

And what about the level of the debate here? This was Tony Blair speaking in the Commons last April when he announced that there would be a referendum on the EU constitution.

TB (recording): Let the Eurosceptics, whose true agenda we will expose, make their case. Let those of us who believe in Britain in Europe, not because of Europe alone, but because we believe in Britain and our national interest lying in Europe, let us make out case too. Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined.

(Loud cheers)

JH: Well, has battle been joined? Not according to the Labour MEP Richard Corbett, whose worried about it all. He’s on the line and so is Neil O’Brien, campaign director of the "no" campaign. Worried in what sense Mr Corbett?

RC: We’ve all been focusing on more immediate issues because the referendum is still over a year away, presumably. But it is time I think to start discussing this because, if we’re going to have a proper national discussion, people really need to know what’s in this new treaty. And my experience is that the more people actually find out what it says, the more favourable they become.

JH: I take it you wouldn’t agree with that Mr O’Brien?

NO: No, I wouldn’t at all. The reality is that the government are running away from a debate because they know that the constitution is extremely unpopular and there’s a general election in four months time. I mean., 60 percent of businesses are against the constitution and 69 percent of voters are against it . And I think that just because its fundamentally not what they want. It means a further transfer of powers to Brussels and that means more decisions will be taken by people who aren’t elected, aren’t accountable and who we can’t even kick out.

JH: But are they against it because they know what it’s about or because they have bought the propaganda, or some of us have bought the propaganda of some of you?

NO: I don’t think it’s propaganda. I think their fundamental view is, at the moment, that Europe is doing too much and doing it badly. What Europe needs to do is reform properly and sort out some of its problems like, for example, the CAP which costs every household in this country £800 a year. That’s what Europe needs to be doing but instead we’re going ahead with a constitution which transfers even more power to Brussels and that’s completely the wrong direction to be going in.

JH: Isn’t that a very fair point Mr Corbett that, erm, not everybody believes that the EU has been an unrelieved good thing in every single respect and they’re worried they’ll get more of the bad bits?

RC: What is true is that the "no" campaign makes all sorts of unfounded allegations about this treaty. We just heard some of them. It does not transfer more powers to "quote" Brussels "unquote". On the contrary, it makes the European institutions more accountable, more subject to democratic control.

JH: Right, let’s just take.. let me stop you for a second. Let me just take that single issue if I may, because the problem with these discussions is that you have counter-claims and people left at the end of it undecided as to who to believe. So, deal with that single thing would you Mr O’Brien, that what you’ve just said about handing more power to Brussels is simply not true. It becomes more accountable not less.

NO: I glad we can get into the detail here because it’s very important. For example, the constitution would mean that we would give up our right of veto, our right to say "no" in 63 new areas.

JH: Right. Is that true or is it not true, Mr Corbett?

RC: We make sure other countries give up their rights to veto what we want…

JH: So it’s true?

RC: …in 63 areas. Yes, and that’s a good thing. It increases our say in the European Union.

JH: Well, right. OK, Mr O’ Brien. Give us another example.

NO: Another example might, for example. be the new powers that the European Union gets over our economy. The Charter of fundamental rights will be inserted in the treaty despite the fact that the government said it would be no more legally binding that the Beano and that will have a huge impact on our economy. It’ll mean that European judges will be able to impose new regulations on our businesses.

JH: True, Mr Corbett?

RC: Absolutely false. The charter of rights is a restriction on the actions of the European Union. EU laws and decisions that violate those rights can be struck down by the courts. It’s a protection for us, for our people.

JH: Another one, Mr O’Brien?

NO: Let’s just go back to that one. It’s interesting that your saying that it doesn’t increase the European Union’s powers. That’s not what.. interruption…

RC: Its in the constitution by the way. It actually says nothing in this charter can be construed as increasing the powers of the European Union.

NO: Well if you look at what European judges are saying, and the European judges are the ones who are going to have to interpret the treaty, they’re saying that it’s "quotes" nonsense that it doesn’t increase their powers.. The president of the court of justice has said that it will give him huge new powers in new areas...

RC: … to strike down bits of EU decisions…

NO: … and our national laws…

RC: No, no, certainly not national laws. It explicitly says that in the constitution…

JH: (Interrupts) All right, all right, I suspect we can have half an hour on each of these…
(Unintelligible … Corbett keeps talking)

RC: Reforms the Union and wreckers… those who want to wreck the European Union in the "no" campaign…

JH: Hang on now, we’re back to rhetoric so let’s just see if we can fit in another illustration, Neil O’Brien, of your case if you have one there.

NO: Of course we don’t want to wreck the European Union. We want to make it work. I mean, I think pro-Europeans should be against the constitution. Another example would be, say, there’s a commitment in the new constitution, for the first time, that the EU will move to a common defence. Now the government said that should be taken out during the negotiations. But it wasn’t taken out and they signed up anyway.

JH: Right. Mr Corbett?

RC: That’s been in the treaty since the Maastricht Treaty, signed up by John Major in the early 1990s…

JH: So why did the government want it taken out then?

RC: … It can only be done if everybody agrees. What the government wanted was to keep the veto on that, we have a veto on that. It can only be done if everyone agrees. Now, how about putting points to me about what are the good things in the constitution…

JH: Go on, go on then…

RC: …and letting him rebut it?

JH: All Right, all right. We’ve not got very long for it, I’m afraid. I thought it was much easier to do it the other way because... It’s fair, either way. It’s fair isn’t it…

RC: That’s the problem with the debate in Britain. They come up with all sorts of myths and lies and the "yes" people have to simply rebut it. Why not let us say what’s good about this constitution…

JH: Go on, quickly… give us one.

RC: It, it sets out the limits of EU powers. It defines it very clearly and the powers that it does exercise are made more accountable by improving the role of national parliaments and the European parliaments in checking and cross-checking every single EU decision. So no EU law could be adopted without approval…

JH: OK…

RC: …both of national governments and of the elected European parliament.

JH: Your chance very quickly to rebut that if you wish, Mr O’Brien.

NO: That’s just vague nonsense. And he’s completely failed to… I’m stunned by his ignorance of what’s in the constitution…

JH: Well…

NO: This new commitment to move to a common defence is completely new. The phrase "we’ll move to a common defence" is new.

JH: All right.. laughs. We can’t do this, obviously, in five or six minutes. This is a very long discussion. We shall do it.. we shall continue to do it between now and whenever we have the vote, if we have the vote in the end. Mr Corbett, Mr O’ Brien, thank you both.

ends.

Some encouraging thoughts

No, there is nothing in today’s news stories (such as they are) to encourage anyone and the weather is so-so in my part of the world. Nevertheless, encouraging thoughts are needed and I have found some in a book I finished reading recently.

On another forum I said that John O'Sullivan's book "The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister", subtitled "Three Who Changed The World", will be the must-read book for all conservatives with a small "c". Conservatives with a big "c" do not seem to read anything these days.

Actually, it will be the must-read book for everyone who cares about liberty, twentieth century history and the last great battle that was waged against an evil system. That includes a lot of people. The book is already out in the United States and is due out in Britain in April.

Bringing his story to the end, O'Sullivan has this to say about his three protagonists and their reputation:

Yet will such a post-religious people be able to comprehend them? In all three cases – Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul – it is a spiritual element that best explains them and their achievements. All three, in subtly different ways, taught and embodied the virtue of hope.

John Paul’s sermons and speeches in Poland were injunctions to people not to despair in the face of overwhelming force, but instead to hope in God and trust their fellow man.

Reagan preached confidently of a coming age of liberty that would bring about the end of Communism. Thatcher believed in “vigorous virtues” that, once liberated from the shackles of socialism, would enable the British and people everywhere to improve their own lives. In very different styles, all were enthusiasts for liberty.

In the late 1970s they encountered difficult practical problems ranging from inflation to religious oppression to Soviet military power. Worse, the problems had coalesced to form a nightmare in people’s minds. A nightmare is a more intractable problem than the separate difficulties that compose it because it paralyses the will with despair.

John Paul, Reagan, and Thatcher all tackled the problems before them in a commonsense way; more important, they all were confident they would win. They drove out despair with hope, they dispelled the nightmare. With daylight the problems had become manageable. Eventually they were solved.

Alas, not all problems were solved and the British still have not shaken off the shackles of socialism. Another nightmare has overwhelmed us. Nevertheless, those are encouraging words, with which I prepare myself for this evening when I shall hear a talk on present day Russia. I need all the encouragement I can get.

COMMENT THREAD

A high water mark?

As Russia replaces its combat troops with "peacekeepers" in Georgia, thereby making a mockery of the international "community" and in particular M. Sarkozy who brokered what passes for the withdrawal deal, the commentators are picking over the bones of what is left of the EU's fabled common foreign policy.

Pre-eminent in this noble task is John O'Sullivan who notes how the conflict in Georgia has brought into focus the stark divisions in the political structure of the world, arguing that it "is really a three-way struggle between authoritarians, national democrats, and global legalists."

And, while one might expected the "global legalists" to have rushed to the barricades to defend the "international norms", the odd thing, writes O'Sullivan, is that when the crisis broke, it was the national democrats from whom the show of solidarity with the Georgians came.

Thus, he avers, the EU argument that pooling sovereignty leads to greater real power proved to be a sham - it led in practice to collective impotence and self-deception. This post-modern war has proved the limits of soft power and the emptiness of global legalism without roots in democratic support.

If the Georgian conflict has proved a blow to the self-esteem and ambitions of the "colleagues", however, already the camp followers are attempting to pick up the pieces.

In the Irish Times this weekend, John Palmer - founding political director of the European Policy Centre in Brussels and previously European editor of The Guardian - makes a case for a new post-conflict relationship between the EU and its eastern neighbours.

Amazingly, he argues for a "United Commonwealth of Europe", which would include Russia and the former Soviet satellites, within the framework of the Council of Europe. This, suggests, would replicate the EU's own arrangement for deciding issues of mutual interest "through both co-operation and a degree of sovereignty sharing."

Acknowledging that Russia under Putin's authoritarian rule "may neither qualify for nor be interested in membership" (how could he do otherwise - when did Russia ever "share" sovereignty?), Palmer still contends that this is a strategy which would attract Russian democrats who have always aspired to be part of "the European family".

But, at the heart of Palmer's piece is a lament that the European Union could play a more constructive role only "if it could overcome its own internal divisions," with that observation that "EU governments seem bereft of ideas for a long-term strategy to overcome a looming new division on the Eurasian continent."

Indeed, that is the reality. As my co-editor so often observes, there is no common interest between the 27 disparate states of the EU and without that, it is difficult to see how they can cobble together a coherent – or any – long-term strategy.

This, though, does not mean it will not continue trying to pull its mad edifice together and, come the autumn political season, we will see many pronouncements from the "colleagues" on the direction to take.

Nevertheless, more and more, it is becoming apparent that the EU is a wounded animal, stranded by its own unrealistic ambitions, compounded by its complete lack of ability to deliver. All the talk in the world will not fix this problem, which can only get worse as that inconvenient reality continues to intrude. In Georgia, therefore, we may just have seen the high-water mark of European ambitions.

COMMENT THREAD

That defence question

In the Corbett versus O'Brien interview this morning, both parties made claims about the status of defence in the proposed constitutional treaty.

O' Brien claims that: "there’s a commitment in the new constitution, for the first time, that the EU will move to a common defence." Corbett, on the other hand, claims: that "it’s been in the treaty since the Maastricht Treaty, signed up by John Major in the early 1990s", whence O’Brien counters: "This new commitment to move to a common defence is completely new. The phrase 'we'll move to a common defence' is new."

The problem with this type of interview is typified by that extract. Claims and counter-claims are made, and the issue is left unresolved. Who is right? Who do you believe? Well, technically, Corbett is correct.

Maastricht (Art. J.4 (1)) actually states:

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

In other words, is sets up a commitment, albeit vague, to move towards a common defence. This is then modified by the Amsterdam treaty, renumbered to become Article 17 (1). This reads:

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might… (deleted: in time) lead to a common defence.

The "eventual framing" now becomes the "progressive framing" – a little bit firmer, made stronger by the deletion of "in time". The elision, incidentally, relates to a reference on the WEU, making it an integral part of the Union.

By the Nice Treaty, again Article 17 (1), the passage remains the same, with the removal of the reference to the WEU. That brings us to the proposed constitutional treaty, where the original passage now transmutes into Article I-41 (2), which reads:

The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

From the very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially: "might" has become "will", but it does need a unanimous decision of the European Council.

Nevertheless, Corbett is right that the commitment to move to a common defence is in Maastricht. It is simply firmed up by the constitution.

Had O'Brien cited Article I-41 (7), he would have been on stronger ground. As outlined in our earlier posting, this imposes on all member states mutual obligations of "aid and assistance" by all means within their power, should any member state be the "victim of armed aggression". This, for the first time, turns the EU into a fully-fledged military alliance.

An alternative to committing suicide

Asked for his views on an alternative to the EU, Alan Sked, the founder of UKIP, famously noted that the alternative to suicide was simply not to commit suicide.

The logic of this is absolute. Such are the dynamics of trans-national organisations that, even if the EU was replaced with a completely different structure, the new organisation would, in the fullness of time, end up with much the same world view and aspirations as the body it replaced – presenting just as much a threat to the survival of nation states.

Today, John O'Sullivan in the Telegraph op-ed gives sustenance to that view, advocating the concept close to the heart of this blog, namely the Anglosphere.

As a long-term supporter of the idea, he frames it to perfection, describing it as a "network civilisation" which has the capability to mature into a more formal arrangement creating what a "network commonwealth". These, says O'Sullivan, may end up being more integrated - psychologically and socially, as well as economically - than consciously designed entities such as the EU.

Strangely enough though, we get another of those dichotomy of views between the headline writers. The print edition sports the title, "The Anglosphere could be the making of Britain if we dare", while the online version heads up with the question, "A British-led Anglosphere in world politics?"

The latter title is highly misleading. A loose "network" that would encompass such nations as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India, would never accept British leadership. As to India, the growth in its economy and its emergence as a regional power are set to make it a greater economic and military force than the UK in the foreseeable future.

The question is, therefore, not whether Britain could or would lead the Anglosphere but whether indeed it could even participate in it, as we are drawn inexorably into the European sphere with the advent of the Lisbon treaty and treaties yet to come.

Already, as we have pointed out, there is a strong defence component in the Lisbon treaty, which brings us that much closer to creating a common defence structure, and pressures within the Union are building up to make this a reality.

Despite the advances triggered by the 1998 St Malo agreement between Chirac and Tony Blair, however, the process of European defence integration has largely stalled. We have noted an increasing lack of enthusiasm, amounting to direct obstruction of the European ambitions, to the extent that the UK can no longer be counted as an active partner in the process.

Interestingly, although the active promoter of the European defence identity in the days of Blair was France, Sarkozy does not seem to be demonstrating the same enthusiasm as his predecessor either. Possibly as a result, the guardianship of the flame seems to be passing to Germany, from which the most strident voices can be heard.

German enthusiasm for a European army, however, is not all it seems. Rather than being an expression of strength – and a desire to dominate Europe, as some fear – it is a sign of the country's continued weakness. Still haunted by its conduct during the Second World War, Germany's leaders wish to take a more active role in world affairs, but lack the self-confidence to do it alone – not least because of the reaction of its neighbours to a resurgent Germany.

Thus, German policy is the same now as it was in 1954 which saw the first attempt at forming a European army – to clothe its military and foreign policy ambitions in "Europe", vesting control in a supranational authority, to reassure it neighbours that it has no ill-intent towards them.

Some progress has been made over the last fifty years since 1954, but it has been glacial and, even today, the European army is regarded as a long-term project. Therein lies the bigger problem for the Europeans. Events await for no man, and certainly not for the Europeans to get their act together and field a credible force.

Furthermore, the nature of the threat is changing and, while the Europeans gaze studiously at their navels, those forces which are actually engaged in fighting the new threat – the war against terror – and evolving new equipment, tactics and doctrines, leaving the European further and further behind.

Added to that, there is an anti-militaristic ethos pervading Europe, with a widespread reluctance to spend the necessary sums on equipping and maintaining modern armies, further diminishing the capabilities of the European forces. And, some of the EU member states which do show enthusiasm for defence integration see in the project not an opportunity to exert greater power, but a means by which they can spend even less on defence than they do at present.

Thus, the reality behind the ambitions of European military might is that the member states cannot deliver, neither individually nor collectively, and there is no prospect of them doing so in the foreseeable future. And, so far are they slipping behind that, should they ever be able to develop the political and command structures that would allow them to operate on a European level, their capabilities will be substantially less than optimal.

That brings us back to the Anglosphere. The UK, having taken a more robust and proactive role in world affairs, cannot wait for the Europeans to get its act together. After a flurry of activity post-St Malo, European co-operation has weakened while the UK's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have strengthened co-operation with Anglospheric partners such as Australia and Canada, as well as the United States.

The degree of US co-operation has emerged from the accounts of the recent re-taking of Musa Qala where, not only were 600 troops from the US 82nd Airborne Division deployed – using more helicopters in that one operation than have been deployed by the British in the whole theatre – but the US command was intimately involved in the planning and execution of the operation.

It is perverse, therefore, that just at the time when the UK is working so closely with the Anglosphere, it should be signing up to a tranche of further European integration, in the Lisbon Treaty. In the final analysis, though, deeds may be worth more than words on a piece of paper. The threats we face are real, while the treaty remains a European fantasy which cannot deliver.

On that basis, the print edition heading of O'Sullivan's article may be close to the truth: "The Anglosphere could be the making of Britain if we dare". But there may be another truth. The Anglosphere could also be the undoing of attempts to draw the UK deeper into the maw of European integration. As an alternative to committing suicide, it has much to commend it.

COMMENT THREAD

Two articles from over the Pond

Though the American media and blogosphere on the left seems to be taken up with dishing dirt - some relevant, most not so - about Sarah Barracuda, with the occasional irruption of fingernail-gnawing comments of what an utterly bad choice she was and how this will give the Dems the election, other matters do turn up as well, though mostly on the other side of the spectrum.

Oh, before I leave the subject of Governor Palin, here is an interesting reading of the situation by the highly regarded "maverick" blogger Spengler.

On to what really matters and that is what to do about Russia (and if there is one politician who knows about that country, it is the Governor of Alaska). John O'Sullivan produces a jeu d'esprit in the New York Post in which he envisages that famous 3 a.m. phone call for President Obama but as he says the situation would be much the same for President McCain, though he is unlikely to be quite so wimpish. Also, I don't think President Obama will make Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State. But as to what the Europeans might do if there is another crisis, the description is fairly accurate.

"Maybe the Germans can lean on them," mused the president, remembering his warm reception in Berlin.

"Germany won't agree to using force without a UN resolution. It's a constitutional thing with them," chimed in the secretary of state.

"I'm not talking force, Hillary," replied the president. "That's Bush-think. No, we have to respond with diplomacy and, as a last resort, sanctions."

"Maybe the Germans can impose oil and gas sanctions on Russia," said Mrs. Clinton sweetly. "Sit in the dark and warm themselves by burning the money they've saved until the Kremlin crumbles."

"Well, there's a united Europe today," replied the president, brightening. "Sanctions by the whole European Union would worry the Russians. Aren't they a possibility?"

"We'll know for sure in two weeks, sir, when the European Summit meets to discuss the crisis. But the signs aren't good. Poland and the Baltic states want a strong response, but they lack the clout of Germany and France. I'd say a moderately worded rebuke to Moscow is the best we can hope for."

Mr O'Sullivan's conclusion is entirely predictable and is obviously correct, since it is completely in line with what this blog has been saying for some time.

Multilateral forces can work only if there is a clear agreement of what the purpose is and who provides those forces. The European Union, on the other hand, without managing to provide an alternative by way of power, soft or hard, has an entirely negative effect on Western ability to deal with crises:

If the next US president wants effective multilateralism, he must re-establish NATO as the sole supplier of European security. Otherwise, when the phone rings, he'll have one rival to call instead of 25 allies.

There is, presumably, the possibility of re-creating NATO in a completely different form, which would leave out a number of West European countries.

One of the editorials in today's Wall Street Journal is also on the EU's inability to deal with the situation created by President Medvedev's refusal to live up to any of the agreements, supposedly sealed, signed and delviered by President Sarkozy, whose country holds the rotating presidency.

"Stop! Or we'll say stop again!" just about sums up the outcome of Monday's grand summit, whether it is the comedian Robin Williams's line or not.

We are glad to see that the newspaper is not falling for Sarkozy's bully tactics with which he tries to masquerade his own incompetence:

Mr. Sarkozy also insisted that his efforts to reach a cease-fire had borne fruit. The Georgians might disagree. Russia has used the agreement's vague language to justify a continued presence in Georgia far beyond the original conflict zone. The cease-fire called for international talks about the separatist regions, but that didn't stop Mr. Medvedev from recognizing their independence.

The most cynical comment of the day was Mr. Sarkozy's attempt to use the conflict to bully the Irish over their rejection of the EU's Lisbon Treaty in June. "This crisis has shown that Europe needs to have strong and stable institutions" like those it would have gotten under Lisbon, Mr. Sarkozy said.

No, what Europe needs is political will. Rather than scolding Irish voters, Mr. Sarkozy would do better to name and shame those member states whose desire to curry favor with Moscow keeps the EU from taking a firmer stand.

The one problem is that the Wall Street Journal still considers that Europe and the European Union are one and the same, thus assuming that "Europe" can have such a thing as political will.

They can also see it

We noted earlier the strange lack of political response to the Watts judgement from the ECJ, two days ago, not least the facile, party-political point made by shadow health spokesman Andrew Lansley.

But, if the mainstream British parties don't get the point (or are intent on ignoring it), it has not been lost on the Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin. They have been quick into the lists, in a press release, asserting that the ECJ ruling "strengthens argument for all-Ireland health service".

The declaration that health service patients forced to wait longer than they should for medical treatment are entitled to reclaim the cost of being treated in other European countries, the Party says, will have far-reaching consequences for both health departments across Ireland.

It will means that health departments on both sides of the border "must now stop paying lip service to the establishment of an all-Ireland health service and start taking positive and concrete steps to make the creation of a single health service on the island of Ireland a reality." Spokesman John O'Dowd adds:

The harmonisation of health services on an all-Ireland basis would deliver major benefits for tens of thousands of people across Ireland. This is about ensuring the free-flow of patients, based on clinical need, from one part of the country to the other. It is about removing unnecessary impediments, which are preventing the harmonisation of health systems on the island, and delivering a modern, flexible service fit for purpose that can cater for the needs of all.

From his perspective, such an outcome is obviously desirable, but O'Dowd clearly has not thought it through. What applies on an all-Ireland basis clearly has the same force of logic when applied to a pan-EU level. Where there is a free-flow of patients across borders, the argument for a strategic, cross-border health authority becomes very powerful and highly attractive to the integrationalists.

As we observed last Tuesday, therefore, the Court's judgement was a significant step towards a European Health Service. That our politicians do not want to address this issue confirms further the degree of denial which infects the British body politic.

COMMENT THREAD

Freedom of speech - 2

In an article in the Canadian National Post, John O’Sullivan explained the refusal to discuss Communist crimes to be the result of the Left’s bad conscience:

“These, surely, are the uneasy consciences of post-communist Europe, guiltily aware that for seven decades they have turned a blind eye to the evils of communism. They too had been Marxists and had at various times supported the Soviets, Mao, Ho-Chi-Minh, Fidel, and all the other murderers. And they are unwilling even today to surrender their Marxist illusions which gave them a sense of moral and intellectual superiority over their political opponents.

They have their counterparts on an American Left that regards McCarthyism as a greater evil than Kolyma and the Arctic slave camps. As the piles of communism's corpses mounted, increasingly impossible to deny or justify except for the most intellectually calloused, both Lefts have tried to silence their consciences by preventing the subject ever being raised--that and "crying witch.".”

With the East European countries taking an ever more vigorous part in European and world politics, it has become more and more difficult to pass over Communist crimes. Soon even Tory MPs will realize that there were two depraved systems in the twentieth century.

Recently the Parliamentary Committee of the Council of Europe (PACE), though this would never happen in the European Parliament (the Toy Parliament), voted by a simple majority to condemn the crimes of Communism. According to the report these included:

“… individual and collective assassinations, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportation, torture, slave labor and other forms of mass physical terror”.

Most of us would call that pretty depraved, Ms Villiers. PACE went so far as to equate Communism and Nazism, calling them both totalitarian, and to call for “moral restitution” for the surviving victims. That, presumably, means some form of apology.

A tougher resolution that called on the European governments to condemn Communism and to investigate those guilty of crimes who were still living (these, incidentally, would not be eighty-something year old men but somewhat younger) did not get the necessary two-thirds majority.

It was blocked by the Russian delegation, and a combination of the existing Communist parties, and the United Left of the Greens and various socialists. One must distinguish, they whined, between Communist ideology and Communist governments, who committed the crimes. The ideology was super-excellent, meant for the best for everyone, and must not be sullied by the crimes.

As Mr O’Sullivan points out, it is hard to get away from

“… the curious fact that the crimes were invariably committed wherever communists came to power”.

Even the very limited PACE resolution has been denounced by various West European socialists (who clearly do not wish to know what happened to their political brethren under Communist regimes) as a “witch-hunt of progressive forces”.

That brings me to another historical event about which endless lies have been told and are being told.

One of the big Hollywood movies of the year is George Clooney’s “Good Night and Good Luck”. Rapturously greeted by critics, though disdained by the public, it is yet another “courageous” account of the evils of McCarthyism, this time focusing on the TV journalist Edward Murrow, who launched a counter-attack, in defence of friends of his, who had been accused of being Communist agents.

How many times have we heard of the evil McCarthyite witch-hunts that destroyed innocent people’s lives through accusations of Communism? Lies, all lies and pernicious lies at that.

There has been no evidence of a single innocent person being accused. In fact, documents found in Moscow and published in the last decade show that the extent of Communist subversion in American public life was far greater than even Senator McCarthy believed.

The Hollywood Ten? Every one of them has admitted to secret membership of the Party and to following the party line in providing propaganda and destroying the reputation of anyone who tried to tell the truth.

Anyone who wants to know about that whole sad tale can read the well researched “Red Star Over Hollywood” by Radosh and Radosh.

As for Murrow, the freedom-defending, truth-seeking journalist, as he was described by the Daily Telegraph film critic, he was either a liar or a dupe. An article recently published on TechCentral Station goes into the whole story. Mark Steyn picks up another episode in the film and proves the same point. Ironically, the truth would have made a better and, possibly, a more popular film.

The persistent lies of writers and film-makers who have produced a completely distorted picture of McCarthyism and what had led up to it has made any reasonable discussion about Communism and its horrors very difficult, if not impossible. The slightest mention of it and we hear those shrieks of “witch-hunt” and “McCarthyism”.

Hizonner the Mayor of LondON has even gone so far as to call people who have criticized him for his persistently anti-Jewish attitude a new and updated form of McCarthyism.

Lies and falsification. Should we not arrest and imprison the people who are responsible? If not the film-makers (though I would give much to shut up George Clooney the next time he starts pontificating) then at least the historians. Yet there would be demands for just that if there was a film that justified Nazi propaganda or pretended that it never really happened and if there were agents, they merely wanted to create a better world and did not quite know what they were getting into.

There is another disturbing aspect to our obsession with the Holocaust. It has been reified, turned into a concept with no understanding of what caused it, who were the people involved, what was the political system that created it.

During the campaigns for and against the Constitution for Europe, as our readers will remember, first the fragrant Margot, then some Dutch MEPs tried to use the Holocaust as an argument for further integration and for the Constitution. (To be fair to the Dutch MEPs, they also tried to use Srebrenice and the Madrid bombing attack.)

There was a justifiable outcry. The fragrant Commissar had to change her speech and prevaricate at great length about what she did and what she did not say in Terezin. Noticeably, of course, she did not go into any detail about the horrors of Communism, a supranational ideology.

The Dutch MEPs were forced to pull their TV ads, though they were available on the internet for a long time.

The word Holocaust is used for all sorts of purposes as the supreme evil with no real understanding. Even more appallingly, the word gulag (the network of labour camps in the Soviet Union) is now trotted out as a reprimand for what we do not like.

Thus, first the Chief Executive of Amnesty International (to the horror of many of the employees), then our own egregious Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, called Guantánamo the new gulag. Setting aside the alliteration and, even, what you might or might not think about Gitmo and its prisoners, comparing it to the gulag is dishonest and despicable.

How many people are there in Guantánamo and how many have died? How many were there in the gulag and how many died? As for comparative conditions, let us not go for the real horror stories. Why not read “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”? With all the horrors, it is the description of a “good” day.

(My father, who was in the camps about the same time, said that the daily rations prisoners received were lower in quantity and calorific value than those given to POWs by the Japanese. Guantánamo, indeed.)

The obsession with the Holocaust is also camouflaging something else – the growing new anti-Semitism in Europe. Partly it comes from the Muslim minorities but partly from the left in politics, who insist that they are anti-Zionists and not anti-Semites.

Well, that depends. Criticism of the Israeli government is a legitimate exercise. Most Israelis do it all the time and, anyway, it is only a government and they are only politicians.

To say you are anti-Israeli is a little trickier. The idea that you can be anti any country, no matter what, is absurd, but then people are anti-American in the same mindless fashion. (I recall somebody saying to me with great surprise, when I expressed some criticism of the American government: “But I thought you were pro-American.” Largely I am, but it is not a religion. Of course, for the anti-Americans it often is.)

If you are also anti-Zionist, you are saying that the Jewish people have no right to have a country; that those who want to sweep Israel into the sea are right. Confronted with this logic, most “anti-Zionists” back away and mutter about occupied territories but the truth remains: Hamas, for instance, thinks all the territories are occupied and even the land that had been legally sold must be “returned”.

Let us face it, “anti-Zionism” goes way beyond it. We have a situation when the most disgusting cartoons are published about the Israeli Prime Minister in newspapers such as the Guardian or the Independent. Some of them could have come out of Der Stürmer, but no, I don’t think they should be banned. Incidentally, I do not recall any demonstrations.

The Association of Univeristy Teachers (yes, I know, who cares about them) tried to pass a resolution to ban all Israeli academics from British universities and conferences. The attempt failed but only just. All Israeli academics? Nothing like that had ever been suggested about Soviet or South African ones.

The Church of England Synod has voted for a financial disengagement from Israel and Israeli businesses, saying in effect that Israel is uniquely evil. It has not suggested to do so with China, for instance, or any Middle Eastern country that persecutes Christians mercilessly. To his credit, former Archbishop Carey expressed his disgust with this move. The present Archbishop voted for it, then prevaricated mightily to all and sundry.

And so on, and so on. The situation is even worse in Continental countries. Most of them, for instance, now have a police guard around synagogues.

But whenever these points are mentioned, hands are raised in horror: how can you accuse us of being anti-Semitic when we care so much about the Holocaust and what happened during it.

Even Hizonner the Mayor of LondON plays that game.

It is, of course, impossible to view the Holocaust as just another historical event. But then, it is impossible to view the various Communist collectivizations and purges as just historical events. The banning of any discussion, however, serves to distort our perception of history and camouflages increasingly disturbing developments.

We must not go down that route and repeat the horrors of the last century.

COMMENT THREAD

Mealy-mouthed Monbiot

In the Canada Free Press today we find the following:

Mealy-mouthed Monbiot ("mealy-mouth:" unwilling to state facts simply and directly) has become a laughing stock not only among skeptics of the man-made global warming fraud, but also die-hards in his beloved tree-hugging fraternity.

Author John O'Sullivan also writes of an expensive libel action averted but that is not the case just yet. The Guardian, with my agreement, are treating my complaint in two parts.

The rather stiff apology from Mr Monbiot relates to the purely technical matter of his mistake, and his sneering comments related thereto, in not realising that my argument on "Amazongate" rested on two rather than one posts.

That leaves the second and rather more serious issue of what I allege to be defamation by Monbiot, and we have so far reached tentative agreement on a "right of reply". However, The Guardian is at the moment relying on a "fair comment" defence, arguing that this relieves Mr Monbiot of any responsibility to apologise.

On this, I find myself in the rather unusual position of instructing The Guardians senior lawyer on matters of basic law pertaining to the defence of fair comment. This passage is as useful as any:

If a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment. The courts have said that whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on or what may happen to them or to others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment.

The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. If he or she is unable to do so, then the defence will fail.

Amongst other things, I am taking the view that Mr Monbiot's assertion that, "Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood", is meant as a statement of fact rather than opinion.

Either way, whether represented as opinion or fact, the assertion is neither true nor founded on fact. Nor could it be said that Monbiot's claim is free from malice, especially in view of his subsequent comments. But, on the substantive point, it is for Monbiot and The Guardian to prove that, as a matter of fact, I have been "exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood".

In this, they would have to demonstrate that the IPCC in respect of "Amazongate" has been "vindicated" and that the assertions made stem from that as a matter of course.

As it stands, The Guardian lawyer has other commitments for this week, so I have agreed to a hiatus. By the end of the week, however, we expect further developments with the WWF, and we will also be bearding the IPCC, putting the issue back in their court where it also belongs. I am also advised that there may be other very significant developments, which could have a substantial effect on the debate.

Thus, this matter is very far from over, and even when we have done here, there is the huge issue of REDD, which is just beginning to impinge on the public debate. One might suggest that if Mr Monbiot was truly an environmentalist, he might be more concerned with issues such as this, where the implications are enormous and disturbing.

But then, since when have the Greenies actually been interested in the environment, much less people?

Comment: Moonbat thread

Change one can believe in?

Strong rumours flying around that President-Elect Obama is going to make Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State. Well, he owes the lady. After all, she agreed to step aside at the Convention even though she had won the actual primary votes. The paying of debts will be a long process, given how many people have been promised something.

There are the unions who want the abolition of secret ballots (what will the Tory Socialists say to that?) and the Federal civil servants who were promised more power and more money; there are the journalists who appointed themselves to be Obama propagandists; above all, there are the Kennedys. We shall see.

Of course, Secretary of State Clinton was predicted by our friend John O'Sullivan, Executive Editor of Radior Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I found it hard to believe him at the time and may well have to eat my words. We shall see. Our joint prediction about European reaction was accurate, I suspect.

First report

Part of Monday was spent at a conference organized jointly by (deep breath) the Center for Security Policy with the New Criterion, Hudson Institute, City Journal – Manhattan Institute and our own Centre for Social Cohesion. With such illustrious sponsors there were illustrious speakers, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn, Daniel Johnson, Melanie Phillips, John O’Sullivan and David Pryce-Jones. Several postings will be needed to do it all justice and this is merely a preliminary musing.

The theme was “Free Speech, Jihad and the Future of Western Civilization” with a sub-heading mentioning libel tourism, a peculiarly British problem but that was not one of the main subjects. Since there were no lawyers on either of the panels, there could be no discussion of how the libel laws of this country can be changed as, we all agree, they must be.A repeated theme elaborated by several speakers was the notion that the danger we are facing through soft jihad is greater than any we have faced before as neither Nazism nor Communism were so obviously ensconced in our society. There were no schools named after Lenin or St Adolph churches on street corners. Thus, our refusal to fight the jihad is liable to destroy Western civilization in a way the other two ideologies could not.

Let me, respectfully, disagree with that. Well, I guess you expected that. The long analysis and disagreement is on EUReferendum2, though without pictures as I cannot think of any appropriate ones.

Here is a man who writes some sense

John O'Sullivan in the National Review on the "failed" Cameron experiment.

The great problem is that, despite that failure, the erstwhile Conservatives will probably win the next general election. The even bigger problem will be that many of them will have convinced themselves that they won the election "on merit" rather than simply benefiting from the collapse of Labour.

Then the overwhelming problem will be that, having failed entirely to think through any coherent policies, and having suppressed debate on so many issues, they will not have the first idea of how to govern the country. From day one, they will be on the back foot, reacting to rather than dictating the agenda.

The fourth and final problem will be that when the erstwhile Conservatives fail – as indeed they must – there will no longer be an alternative party as a reservoir of hope for the deluded. It will be too soon for a Labour recovery.

Then the fun will really start.

COMMENT THREAD

Today's the day

Actually, the voting on the outlying islands started two days ago. And, according to The Times, the very first vote was cast in Barry Edgar Pilcher's living room in Raven Cottage on Inishfree - it went to the "no" campaign.

Mr Pilcher, 66, a London-born artist and musician, serenaded locals on his saxophone as they voted. "I voted 'no' because I think we shouldn't give our power away," Mr Pilcher said. Turnout was high, with five of Inishfree's seven eligible voters casting a ballot. Patsy Dan Rodgers, the "king" of neighbouring Tory Island, said most of the 150 islanders would vote "no" – rather appropriate for the "Tories".

With the vote expected to favour the "yes" camp, however, God – or, at least, the Vatican, which is not quite the same thing – has made an unexpected intervention, warning that the European Union threatens Ireland's "identity, traditions and history".

This is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, who spoke during the Pope's visit to the Czech Republic, noting that: "Individual European countries have their own identity. The EU prescribes its laws or views to them and they do not have to fit with their traditions and history. Some countries are logically resisting this – for example, Ireland."

Anodyne though this might be, it has been seized upon by the "no" camp in what is regarded as an increasingly acrimonious campaign, with prime minister Brian Cowen still lying through his teeth, claiming that he had secured "legal guarantees" from the EU on Irish concerns about the treaty.

Whatever the "yessies" might say about their level of support, Dr John O'Brennan, European politics lecturer at NUI Maynooth, is warning that the level of anger among Irish voters towards an unpopular government should not be under-estimated.

"If you talk to people all around the country," he says, "a level of anger is very, very high. Are people rational enough to put that aside and think of the interests of the country in the longer term? I'm not so sure." That is obviously from a Europhile and he may not have picked up another factor – more than a few Irish are a tad annoyed with being made to vote again, their first vote having been ignored by their political classes.

Results are not due until Saturday, and it will be mid-morning before we get an idea of which way the sentiment is going, but there is still some hope that the "piss off" factor will prevail and the Irish will have the sense to give the "colleagues" in Brussels a bloody nose.

COMMENT THREAD

Letter from America No. 3

One of the interesting comments at yesterday's discussion at the Hudson Institute was made by the host, John O'Sullivan. He pointed out that anyone who really wanted to follow the Alito hearings had to read the blogs that were providing not only hour by hour reporting and analysis but also commentary and quotations from many of the participants that frequently countered their present stance.

I haven't done that as yet but I did watch some of the proceedings on TV. The Alito hearings is the biggest news here and has managed to dwarf even the Jack Abramoff scandal, though the latter might well have a deleterious effect on the Republicans' chances in the forthcoming mid-term elections.

The general agreement is that by and large Alito has done well. He has managed to by-pass the clearly political questioning by the Democrats, whose aim seems to be to overcome the fact that they are electorally challenged by trying to impose a "liberal"agenda on the Supreme Court.

Without going into any of the details, let me refer to one or two comments by Alito that impressed me. He explained to the senators that the opinions he had expressed as an advocate were one thing but a judge cannot have an agenda. A judge has no clients and no interest in the outcome of the case. The judge is there to interpret the law as the law stands.

The Democrats had also tried to pick him up on one or two cases (apart from the one he should not have taken on as there was a clash of interests) when he allegedly did not come out on the side of the "little guy". Well, there are several points in response to that. First of all, the "little guy" is not always right. Given the fact that the rather left-wing legal "clinics" that are attached to the big universities and their law departments, tend to work for some of the largest organizations as long as they are on their side of the divide and care very little about jobs for the "little guy" or the "little gal" this whole discussion is problematic.

But Alito's biggest argument is that he is the "little guy". After all, he comes from an immigrant Italian family, grew up in Trenton, New Jersey, and has made his way up, as did the rest of his family, entirely by his own efforts. Beat that, Senator Kennedy.

And that brings me neatly back to the discussion on Europe, America and the Blogosphere, which I shall describe in greater detail at a later stage. The big question is why it is that Europe, including Britain, is so far behind the United States in the development of the blogosphere.

Some of it is due to technological differences. No question about it - everyone seems to have at least one PC or laptop in this country. They travel with it, they check their e-mails all the time, they blog or read blogs wherever they happen to be.

Internet is available everywhere and the wireless (how nice to see that word again) is widely available. Wireless was described to me a magic and it is. You can just connect to the internet. No mess, no muss.

But, allowing for all of that, there are psychological differences. I shall, when writing about it in detail, go into the various arguments, but would like to leave a couple here as expressed by members of the panel and the audience.

Blogs are started by people who feel that they are for whatever reason barred from expressing their opinion through the available channels. Many people feel that in America but very many people feel that in Europe and in Britain as well. The difference may be that Americans feel that they are all entitled to their opinion and have the right to express it. And that is something we need to achieve in Britain.

COMMENT THREAD

A message from Zanu-Labour Party

A long begging e-mail signed by John O'Farrell, "Author and Broadcaster", concludes with the PS: "Oh and if you know any Tories, pretend that Labour is only accepting Euros, that'll really wind them up!"

Funny, I thought they might have preferred Zimbabwean dollars - or bananas?

The Booker column

In his column today, Booker takes on the O’Brien issue, rehearsed in greater detail in earlier Blogs – click here for the main story, which has links to the other posts.

In particular, he focuses on O'Brien's claims about the "abattoir directive", commenting on how his own column used to report almost to the point of self-parody how the forcing out of business of hundreds of British abattoirs was arguably the most absurd regulatory disaster our membership of the EU had yet inflicted on any British industry. But all those words, it seemed, had been in vain.

He takes up the point that "any half-way competent researcher, either for the Tory Party or the Today programme, could have discovered via Google in two minutes that the meat hygiene directive 91/497 in fact contains not 12 pages but 34, while the wordage of the UK regulations amounts to little more".

Booker’s closing comment, however, puts the whole O’Brien incident into perspective. "The terrifying thing", he writes, "is not just that we have handed over the running of our country to such a weird system of government. It is that neither our politicians nor most of our media still seem to have the foggiest idea how it works".

Also in the column is a report about how John Prescott's regionalisation policy is also going to include the fire services, with plans to set up regional emergency call centres, contactable only through a sequence of push-button questions and answers: "press '1' to report a fire", he writes, "then '1' again for a house fire, '2' for a 'car fire' and '3' for any other fire, such as in an office or factory”. And so on. Campaigner Neil Herron is on the case and working with the firefighters to scupper the plan.

That, and two other stories – one of the European health card – make the column a cracking good read.

How significant is this?

There is a good deal of excitement around because Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister is visiting Iraq. The blogs are certainly covering the story, for instance here, here and here. The Daily Telegraph even quoted an unnamed Iraqi official, who

said that Mr Kouchner was the "most important VIP" to arrive in the Iraqi capital this year, outranking earlier trips by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, as well as Dick Cheney, the US vice-president.

You wonder where they find these officials who seem to think that Foreign Ministers outrank Prime Ministers and French politicians outrank everybody else. For all of that, this was an important visit in that it seemed to consolidate the view that the French government under Sarkozy is likely to be pro-American or, at least, not particularly anti-American.

Kouchner, himself, as we have written before, supported the war in Iraq, making himself very unpopular with the bien-pensants of France, and called Saddam what he was – a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Then again, he has not said anything shattering during his visit; merely that France must start looking at international affairs in a different way. Come to think of it, that is shattering. A French politician acknowledging that France may be wrong on something and should change its point of view? Mon Dieu, quelle horreur.

Nidra Poller publishes a round-up of the stunned French reaction to the visit that had clearly been planned in some secrecy. Among other articles

Libération reminds us that Kouchner was a personal friend of UN official Sergio Viera de Mello, killed in the August 2003 attack against the UN compound, along with Nadia Younes, Fiona Watson, and Jean-Sélim Kanan, who had worked with him in Kosovo. Kouchner, former Socialist Health Minister and one of the founders of Doctors without Borders, defends the “droit d’ingérence,” defined as the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation in order to protect its inhabitants. He disagreed with France’s head-on opposition to the U.S. in 2003, and believes that if France had remained by the side of its American ally, war could have been avoided.

Le Figaro presents another aspect:

Le Figaro quotes Kouchner on the French solution for Iraq, which he shares with president Sarkozy. They believe that there is no military solution. The solution is in the hands of the Iraqis. The French will be glad to help, but it’s up to the Iraqis to solve their problem. We must be patient. We are just at the beginning of the end of the crisis. Kouchner laid a wreath at the monument to the UN victims, dedicated “To the soldiers of peace, [from] a grateful France.”

One cannot argue with that too much though Kouchner presumably does recognize that some military solution is necessary before the political one comes into play.

The article does not just remind its readers of the UN officials who were killed in August 2003 not least because the UN refused to accept American protection of its compound but also refers to the latest UN Resolution, adopted on August 10, which

authorises the UN mission to "advise, support and assist the government and people of Iraq on advancing their inclusive, political dialogue and national reconciliation".

It also authorises the UN to facilitate "regional dialogue, including on issues of border security, energy and refugees", and asks the UN to help develop ways "to resolve disputed internal boundaries" that are acceptable to the government.

This wonderful new Resolution, welcomed by Muqtada al-Sadr, who appears to think that there might be UN troops in the offing, which would most certainly not interfere with his militias, does not specify exactly what the UN is going to be doing in Iraq or how long it will keep its personnel there after a putative bomb attack. Come to think of it, there is no explanation whether the UN personnel will ever get out of the Green Zone in Baghdad.

The question we need to ask about all this activity, what with President Sarkozy lunching with Bush and Foreign Minister Kouchner making friendly noises in Iraq is whether any of it is significant in the long term.

It has been our contention on this blog that under President Sarkozy there will be changes in foreign policy but not all that many domestically because there are too many vested interests intent on keeping matters just as they are. So far, nothing has happened that has made us think we ought to change that line.

Appointing Bernard Kouchner, as we said at the time, was definitely sending a message to the world and, in particular, to the United States just as Gordon Brown appointing David Miliband and Douglas Alexander was sending out a message, though this seems to be rather a muddled one at the moment.

We tend to assume and are usually right to do so that, no matter what happens temporarily, the Americans will realize that of all European countries, Britain is the one whose interests are closest to her own and is likely to stay its staunchest ally. The special relationship has survived various ups and downs and will, we hope, continue to do so. When a man of John O’Sullivan’s calibre argues so, one must pay attention.

However, it is also worth thinking of the other developments. Firstly, the anti-Americanism that the media and Brown’s government taps into. It does not come solely from the left but is widespread on the right as well and, curiously enough, very widespread among eurosceptics, particularly those who have a very weak grasp on reality.

Then there is the ever closer union, which manifests itself in defence procurement as my colleague has written about on many many occasions. The tendency to support the absurd notion that there is such a thing as a “European interest” can be only harmful.

The United States is, naturally enough, looking to allies in different parts of the world and most of these are Anglospheric countries, like Australia and India. Europe is of ever smaller importance from the American point of view and, as a consequence, who precisely is the closest ally in Europe may become an unimportant question. If Britain, then Britain, if France then France, while Gordon Brown, David Miliband and Lord Malloch-Brown play silly-bugger games.

COMMENT THREAD