Brusselswatch - in the press

in the press

Two thirds of voters want EU referendum – Christopher Hope, 1st October 2007
Europe plans €2.1bn cash snatch to rescue ‘white elephant in the sky’ – David Charter, 21st September 2007
Brown's EU fraud exposed by letter – Bruno Waterfield, 28th July 2007
EU treaty published – but only in French – Bruno Waterfield, 27th July 2007
The European constitution is being recycled – Charles Moore, 19th May 2007
Brussels hides the damage its planned new measures will do – Private Eye, 16th February 2007
A doomed currency based on symbolism – Telegraph editorial, 1st January 2007
Euro blamed for rocketing cost of living – Henry Samuel, 1st January 2007
No damages for whistle-blower victimised by the EU – Private Eye, 27 October 2006
Take an exam in pro-Brussels bias – Christopher Booker, 6 August 2006
Convincing the Germans – Die Welt (German newspaper), 22nd June 2006
Commission charm offensive paves way for EU Constitution's return – Open Europe, 12th May 2006
Tomatoes will decide Europe’s future – David Rennie, 6th May 2006
New plans to push through EU constitution – Telegraph, 25th March 2006
Back from the dead – the Economist, 7th January 2006
Blair shows his true European colours – Telegraph editorial, 22nd December 2005
Now pay your tax direct to Europe – Macer Hall, 21st December 2005
Blair EU giveaway will cost taxpayer double – Toby Helm, David Rennie and George Jones, 21st December 2005
Regime change is needed in Europe – Telegraph editorial, 5th December 2005
Brussels bites back – Anthony Browne, 26th November 2005
Nelson must be turning in his grave – Tom Utley, 21st October 2005
What is the point of voting? – Die Welt (German newspaper), 18th September 2005
European meltdown – Ross Clark, 28th August 2005
Ditching euro 'could benefit Italy' – Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 12th July 2005
Euro godfather commends lira's return – Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 20th June 2005
When in trouble, blame the Brits – Sunday Telegraph, 12th June 2005
Our long game pays off – Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 7th June 2005
Sounding the death knell for EU federation – Irish Times, 31st May 2005
Arrogant Eurocracy – New York Sun, 31st May 2005
Mere democracy won't stop the EU machine – Telegraph editorial, 30th May 2005
A No vote is a vote for repatriation of power – Telegraph editorial, 19th May 2005

press archive

Two thirds of voters want EU referendum – Christopher Hope, 1st October 2007
Two thirds of Britons want to have a referendum on the new European Union reform treaty - including a majority of supporters from the main political parties, according to an exclusive YouGov poll.

The treaty has ignited fierce opposition, with critics claiming it amounts to little more than a revived version of the old EU Constitution, which was abandoned after being rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands.

Last week, it emerged that Denmark could hold its own poll and Scotland and Northern Ireland could move towards consultative polls despite the entrenched opposition from Gordon Brown.

The Prime Minister is under pressure because of a Labour commitment in its 2005 manifesto to hold a national vote on the EU Constitution before it was halted by the French and Dutch votes.

The survey, commissioned by The Daily Telegraph, found that 64 per cent of all voters thought there should be a national referendum on whether Britain should ratify the new EU treaty.

Only 12 per cent thought there should not be a national vote on the treaty.

YouGov polled 2,165 electors across Britain between Wednesday and Friday, as Labour's annual conference was coming to a close.

The study found a majority in every major political party in favour of a referendum, from 85 per cent of Conservative voters, to 55 per cent of Labour supporters and 59 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters.

Just six per cent of all voters thought "the new treaty differs substantially from the old constitution and no longer contains most of the provisions that many people objected to two years ago".

Mark Francois, the shadow Europe minister, said the poll showed "beyond doubt that there is overwhelming public support for a referendum".

The cross party campaign, I Want a Referendum, signed up more than 500 party activists and delegates at the Labour, Liberal Democrat and TUC conferences over the past three weeks.

Paul Stephenson, a spokesman, said: "This issue is bigger than narrow party politics — it's about democracy. If Gordon Brown refuses to listen to the people it will hurt him in the next general election."

Last week, in a surprise move in Denmark, the power-sharing Conservative party called for a referendum on the EU's treaty, saying it was "idiotic" not to.

A spokesman said: "We have nothing to hide and it would be idiotic to act as if we had. It would only cement a faulty perception among the people."

Pressure has also come from local parishes, which have been organising their own local referendums. Broughton Astley, Leics, has become the latest to call a referendum, asking its 7,000 adults next month: "Do you want a national referendum on the EU Reform Treaty?"

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, is likely to address the issue when he speaks at the Tory conference in Blackpool tomorrow.

The number of readers who support The Daily Telegraph's campaign for a referendum totals more than 102,500. The campaign is now one of the biggest in the newspaper's 152-year history.

Despite critics claiming the new treaty contains "90 per cent" of the Constitution, Mr Brown has refused to offer the British public a referendum before its introduction.

Mr Brown will head to Brussels on Oct 18 to agree the treaty, ahead of the formal signing in December.

Europe plans €2.1bn cash snatch to rescue ‘white elephant in the sky’ – David Charter, 21st September 2007
French plans to bail out Europe’s ill-starred satellite navigation project with a €2.1 billion raid on the EU farming budget yesterday provoked outrage in Britain and Germany.

Critics said that France’s attempt to seize spare taxpayers’ cash after private investors pulled out would break every budgetary rule in the book – and set an alarming precedent.

But with European prestige – and pride – at stake, Paris has won European Commission backing to use public money as it tries to show that the EU can more than match the American GPS satellite system.

Galileo started life seven years ago as a grandiose project designed to show off the best of European science and engineering – and demonstrate that the EU was a player on the world stage of satellite technology. Galileo was intended to allow pilots, fishermen, drivers, walkers and farmers to pinpoint their location to within a few centimetres.

Now, way behind schedule, it is widely referred to as the biggest white elephant in Brussels. Since private investors from eight EU countries pulled out this summer, it has descended into squabbling over where money to plug the gap should come from and which countries should benefit from the lucrative contracts to design and build it.

Detractors say that there is no need for a European version of GPS, the successful American system behind sat-nav devices in cars, which is freely available across Europe.

Supporters of Galileo argue that Europe must develop its own civil satellite positioning system because one day the Pentagon could switch off the military-controlled GPS or suddenly start charging. In any case, they argue, China and India are developing satellites and the EU must keep up.

The plan to rescue Galileo with taxpayers’ money – and divert it from surpluses in the agricultural budget – threatens to plunge the community into its biggest funding row since Brussels fixed its last six-year budget.

Galileo will consist of 30 satellites, some built in Britain, giving precision locations to within a metre. GPS is accurate to 10m – although the Americans plan an upgrade that is likely to improve its accuracy by 2013.

The British Government, along with every other EU state, signed up to the principle of Galileo in 2000 on the basis that it would be co-funded with industry in a public-private partnership. The original plan was for taxpayers to finance for the first four satellites, and industry to pay for two thirds of the costs of the next 26.

The project was allocated €1 billion (about £700 million) in the current EU budget. But the complete withdrawal of funding from commercial companies has left Galileo in urgent need of a further €2.4 billion to stay on schedule for completion by 2012. With just one satellite in orbit, four more need to be launched as soon as possible to get the system back on track.

Britain has found itself powerless to stop the spiralling costs – initially €915 million – because all the main decisions are taken by qualified majority voting and a strong group of countries that believe firmly in grand European projects – including France, Germany, Italy and Spain – have consistently voted in favour.

But now even Germany, which supports the principle of European self-sufficiency in satellite navigation, has balked at the latest proposal, put forward by Jacques Barrot, the Transport Commissioner.

Mr Barrot spotted the €2.1 billion of “spare” cash in agriculture surpluses projected for 2007 and 2008 – money which, if unspent, would have been returned to member states, including Britain. Moreover, it is money that could be needed at any time for agriculture between now and 2013.

Mr Barrot has conceded that his scheme would require the EU to overcome a taboo, but he said it was the only way of ensuring a future for Galileo. “I am still convinced that Europe needs Galileo,” he said. The agriculture money was “usable without the least diminution of the programmes concerned”, he said.

The proposed cash snatch is regarded by London and Berlin as much more than a Brussels sleight of hand. They fear that it could set a precedent for opening up hard-fought budget limits that could be the start of an even bigger bailout for Galileo. A show-down is expected when transport ministers meet next month. A German official said: “Beyond taking savings away from national budgets, the risk is that if we fund Galileo in this way other underfunded EU projects will start scrambling for this money too.”

Privately, British officials talk of their amazement and concern at the desperate attempts to salvage a system rejected by the private sector. Publicly a government spokesman said that there should be “no reopening” of the agreed budget deal, signalling the battle to come between member states over the future of Galileo.

Some EU diplomats believe that Galileo has become a personal quest for Mr Barrot and the Commission, rather than a strategic and technological necessity. However, supporters insist that there would be significant advantages to the speed and accuracy of Galileo’s transmissions, particularly in financial transactions.

Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP, said: “The Commission has acted with a tactless indifference to the sufferings of British farmers. Raiding funds that were specifically set aside to help the farming industry is entirely the wrong approach to Galileo’s budgetary crisis.”

Brown's EU fraud exposed by letter – Bruno Waterfield, 28th July 2007
The new European Union Treaty has been designed to "keep the advances" of the old constitution "that we would not have dared present directly", a senior Brussels figure has admitted.

Hans-Gert Poettering, president of the European Parliament and a close ally of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, made the admission in a letter to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the discarded EU Constitution.

Mr Poettering stressed that the new treaty, while complicated, would preserve the constitution by a different, more indirect method.

Responding to the claim, Mark Francois, the Conservatives' spokesman on Europe, said: "Hans-Gert Poettering has exposed the cynical fraud Gordon Brown is trying to foist on the British people.

"All Mr Brown's talk about trust and consultation will be uncovered as pure spin if he does not keep his promise to give the British people the final say in a referendum." Adding to the criticism of the Government yesterday was a Labour MP who helped draw up the EU constitution, which was rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago.

Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, told the Commons it was "extremely misleading" to suggest that the Treaty gave more power back to member states than the abadoned constitution.

She added: "If we are so confident that it is good, we should have the confidence to ask the people."

EU treaty published – but only in French – Bruno Waterfield, 27th July 2007
MPs have accused Brussels and Government ministers of preventing proper scrutiny of the new European Union treaty by failing to provide the House of Commons with an English version of the 277-page text.

"Corners are being cut" and parliaments across Europe snubbed in the rush to seal a treaty deal by October, officials have admitted to The Daily Telegraph.

A treaty text was tabled in Brussels on Monday in one language, French.

The Government, and EU officials organising negotiations, cannot produce an official English translation of the 145 pages of draft articles, 69 of protocols and 63 pages of declarations until next month, well after the Commons has finished for the summer.

MPs will return to duty 10 days before Gordon Brown signs a final treaty agreement in Lisbon on October 18-19.

Rejecting referendum calls, the Prime Minister will then press for parliamentary ratification on a treaty that will have been negotiated over the summer without proper scrutiny by MPs.

William Hague, the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, has accused the Government of dodging democratic debate.

"Now that the rejected EU constitution is back, with a different label, it is clear that it is being rushed through with the minimum of scrutiny," he said.

"Gordon Brown wants the British people to know as little as possible about the major transfer of their own powers to Brussels this treaty will bring about, but the tactic could not be more transparent. It simply shows up the undemocratic nature of the exercise."

EU leaders are racing against the clock to rush through a new "reform treaty" to replace the constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

Officials close to the organisation of negotiations have admitted that documents in all the EU's 23 languages are not expected until December, when a formal ratification text will be signed by Europe's leaders.

"We believe it is a problem but we have a mandate that is tight. There is urgency. Doing all this within six months is unprecedented and there are going to be real limitations to the process," said an official.

Normal EU rules stipulating that documents must at least be in German, French and English have been suspended.

The Conservative MP Roger Gale has asked for, and been refused, a copy of the new treaty in English.

"The Government obviously does not want MPs, journalists or the public to have access to the document until it is a done deal - presumably for fear of the growing demand for the people to have the right to vote on the issue," he said.

The European constitution is being recycled – Charles Moore, 19th May 2007
Returning home one evening this week after a couple of days away, I was startled to find a tall, dark sentinel looming at our gate. In the half-light, I eventually discerned that it was a black wheelie bin left by the council.

From June 5, a note inside the bin explained, new methods of rubbish collection will apply. In the interests of recycling, we must put paper in a green box, cans and plastic (but not glass, cellophane or cardboard) in a black box, garden rubbish in a green wheelie bin (not supplied), and everything else in the black wheelie.

Collections of recyclable and non-recyclable will be alternate and fortnightly. Until now, we have had six dustbins that can be filled with any and all rubbish, and they have been emptied weekly from our back door by friendly and helpful men.

In future, we shall have the equivalent of only one dustbin a week at our disposal, and we shall have to drag it up the drive to get anyone to take it away.

From our own immediate point of view, every single aspect of the change is bad. Indeed, rubbish collection is the only one of all the council's services, for which our council tax bill is about £3,000 a year, that we use. So we are paying £60 a week - and of course the price is rising - for a service that is sharply declining.

The justification, we are told, is that we are saving the planet. This is not an article about whether landfill is really such a bad thing, whether recycling itself is wasteful of energy, whether the increase in incineration that will result is worse than what happened before, etc. So all I will say is that the whole question of what is environmentally beneficial is far more disputable than the endless, priggish propaganda admits.

No, this is an article about who decides things.

Two weeks ago, I voted in the district council elections. But the representative I have just helped to elect has almost no say in this matter. If I shout "What a load of rubbish" at him, he can only refer me to higher authorities.

The council is acting under orders from central government. Central government, in its turn, is fulfilling the Landfill Directive, which applies to all non-hazardous waste from October 30 this year. And the Landfill Directive comes from the European Union.

No British voter has ever been asked whether he or she wants Brussels to tell him to put his old Daily Telegraphs in a green box, his empty dogfood tins in a black one and his "residual" into a black wheelie bin. He might prefer to argue about rubbish with an elected neighbour rather than have to wheel it into the road at the behest of some Commissioner from Finland or Greece whom he has never met and whom he cannot appoint or dismiss.

He might look at the EU's even more ambitious plan to protect life on earth - the Emissions Trading Scheme. This week, it announced the results for the first year of operation of this amazingly complicated, bureaucratic, evadable, expensive and arbitrary system - a rise of CO2 emissions in 2005-06 of 3.6 per cent. And when he has looked, he might feel rather depressed.

In fact, no British voter under the age of 50 has ever been asked anything directly about the EU. What did happen, however, was that some other people were asked. In 2005, there were several referendums on the Continent on the proposed treaty to create a European Constitution. France and Holland voted No.

Tony Blair, who supported the new constitution, nevertheless said: "What you cannot do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and bring it back with a few amendments and say, 'Have another go.' You cannot do that."

I'm afraid you can, and they are, and Mr Blair doesn't mind. In April, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, sent a questionnaire to all the EU heads of government. How could they best get the constitution back on the road, she wanted to know. How about some "presentational changes" and schemes "to use different terminology without changing the legal substance"?

The first thing that Nicolas Sarkozy did after becoming President of France this month (apart from taking a short holiday on a very rich man's yacht) was to fly to Mrs Merkel to push forward his variations on this theme. On June 22, there will be a European Council in Berlin. It will try to get a new treaty by Christmas, bringing most of the rejected constitution into effect, though shying away from that painful word. Like my rubbish, the constitution cannot be thrown away, only recycled

The new treaty will almost certainly provide for a permanent President of the EU, instead of the present system of circulation between member states, so a new central power structure will emerge. There will also be an EU foreign minister with the right to speak "automatically" on behalf of member states.

There will be a big move from the unanimity rule in EU votes to qualified majority voting - the original treaty proposed at least 42 such shifts - and crime and justice will be included. The way in which majority voting is calculated will also change, producing a 30 per cent cut in Britain's blocking power.

A recent poll conducted for Open Europe showed that an average of 75 per cent of voters in EU member states want a referendum on any new treaty. But the EU leaders have learnt their lesson. The trouble with the full-on presentation of the European Constitution was that it enabled voters to see what it was. The architects of ever-closer Union will try mightily not to make that mistake again.

Already the argument from Mr Blair and our Foreign Office is that the new treaty will not amount to a serious constitutional change, and therefore there is no need for the voters to bother their little heads about the matter. If that is the position of "Euro-sceptic" Britain, the Europhiles hardly need to trouble to open their mouths.

As for the negotiations themselves, they have been conducted in private. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons has tried without success to get a relevant minister to appear before them.

A process that involves the very basis of law - the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the treaty would enable the European Court of Justice to force Parliament to comply absolutely with its rulings - is being conducted like a papal conclave. The body elected to make our laws knows almost nothing about it.

Mr Blair will represent Britain at the Berlin summit, and Gordon Brown will become Prime Minister five days later. There are hopes that Mr Brown, who said six times in one speech this week that he was "listening" on this matter, will make a clear move on behalf of British independence.

He may be able to take a few things out of the treaty drafts that were not expected to survive anyway, and win a "victory" to embarrass the Conservatives. He might get the title, though not the office, of foreign minister removed. He might get the Charter to wait a bit. He might even make a declaration, irrelevant to the treaty, but confirming what is surely a practical fact, that he will never take Britain into the euro.

What he won't dare do, though, is let us vote. For the accumulated frustrations of more than 30 years mean that any plan for increasing Europe's powers now wins the full-hearted dissent of the British people.

Brussels hides the damage its planned new measures will do – Private Eye, 16th February 2007
The European Commission earned headlines last week for announcing that carmakers would have to make vehicle engines more fuel efficient, thus cutting emissions. It was all good news, said the Commission: European manufacturers will develop world-beating technology , and lower fuel costs will compensate for vehicle price hikes.

The Commission made less of a fanfare, however, about the higher manufacturing costs. Unusually, no impact assessment was published with the proposals. Commission spokesmen deflected questions, saying a full impact assessment would be carried out in due course.

This was disingenuous. Private Eye has established that there have already been not one but two draft studies by Commission services – Industry and Environment. They reached different conclusions; indeed, the proposals were delayed for two weeks due to a quareel between the Commissioners involved, Günter Verhuegen for Industry and stubborn Stavros Dimas for Environment.

Dimas's study – it does not have official "impact assessment" status – found that the proposals could lead to job cuts and an acceleration in the shift of production out of the EU, especially for manufacturers of small and medium-sized cars. The countries most affected would be Spain and the UK.

How the Commission will approach the throny question of job cuts when it prepares the full impact assessment, as promised by the spokesmen, remains to be seen. In the meantime, it refuses to release the draft studies. As one official told Private Eye, "we can't release a document that doesn't exist officially."

A doomed currency based on symbolism – Telegraph editorial, 1st January 2007
When the euro notes and coins were launched five years ago today, the question was who would be the next to join; now it is who will be the first to leave. Of the 15 EU members on January 1, 2002, it is the three that stayed out — Britain, Denmark and Sweden — that have prospered. The two Nordic nations have voted by handsome majorities to keep their currencies. In both countries, political leaders warned that a "No" vote would lead to a downturn; and in both countries, the "No" was in fact followed by a surge in the stock exchange, a fall in inflation and a drop in long-term interest rates. In Britain, public opinion is granite hard for sterling, to the extent that no serious politician proposes joining the EU currency, and the lobby group set up to campaign for it has folded.

Meanwhile, opinion within the euro zone has shifted. In France and Germany, majorities say they would rather have kept their old money. In Italy, some shops have started to accept lire again, to the delight of their customers. It may well turn out that membership of the euro has peaked at 13 with Slovenia's accession. The scenic Alpine state, which joined the euro at midnight, is the goody-goody of the new intake, keen to adopt every harmonising measure. Perhaps its euro-enthusiasm owes something to the fact that, uniquely among the ex-Communist entrants, it has been run continuously by the old regime. Not that Slovenia's rulers are Marxists these days, of course; indeed, they never really were. Rather, they are managerialists, supreme technocrats who have taken naturally to the Brussels system.

Supporters of the currency are clutching at the news of Slovenia's membership, but there is a hollow and perfunctory tone to their jollity. Looking back, their mistake was to rely on mood and symbolism to sell the new currency. Unable to argue convincingly that the euro would make people better off – as, indeed, it has not, bringing slower growth and higher inflation to most participants – they instead concentrated on claiming that monetary union was inevitable. At first, their tactic worked. No one likes to be on the wrong side of history and, faced with a choice between progress or backwardness, most people swallowed their doubts about the enterprise. But remove the sense of inevitability and the entire construct collapses. The optics of the Danish and Swedish referendums were especially telling in this regard. In both countries, the "Yes" campaigns were largely run by middle-aged, middle-class men, while the "No" sides were made up of pretty girls in tight T-shirts. Suddenly, it seems only a matter of time before states start withdrawing.

How funny to look back at the predictions of the Heseltines and Pattens and Kinnocks. Had these men been City forecasters, they would all now be out of a job. But, for some reason, we continue to invite them to pontificate on the BBC, to decorate and defer to them. Odd, really.

Euro blamed for rocketing cost of living – Henry Samuel, 1st January 2007
Less than half of citizens in the euro zone are happy with European monetary system five years to the day after it replaced the franc, the mark and other national currencies, and following a painful rise in the cost of living.

A growing number of Europeans believe that the biggest monetary revolution in history has done more harm than good to national economic growth, the job market and standards of living, recent opinion polls have indicated.

It is in France, Germany and Italy, the most enthusiastic advocates of the move to the euro, where some of the highest dissatisfaction rates were recorded.

A poll published last week in France showed that 52 per cent of the French thought the euro had been a "bad thing."

The main complaint is that the euro has led to a rise in prices – 81 per cent described price hikes as its worst failing, a poll published by the European Commission indicated.

According to the poll, Italy is the most unhappy, followed by Greece and the Netherlands. Ireland is the happiest.

In France, official statistics suggest that inflation is no higher than before the euro, hovering around 1.6-2.1 per cent yearly since 1999.

But press investigations have shown that these statistics are inaccurate when it comes to basic commodities. According to Le Parisien, which published its own comparative study, the price of 30 everyday items had shot up by 80 per cent in the past five years. A baguette cost 65 cents in 2002 and 80 in 2006 – up 23 per cent. A coffee in a cafe had rocketed 120 per cent, a kilogram of potatoes had gone up by 93 per cent and toothpaste by 84 per cent.

Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister, subsequently promised to create new, more representative price indicators in the fields of housing, energy, water and telephones.

The majority of French and Spanish want a return to dual pricing – with the national and European currencies side by side on price labels.

People were still finding it hard to get to grips with the real value of things, and as a result were spending less as a precautionary measure, said the study.

The European Commission insisted last week that there was a "certain erroneous perception" of inflation.

"Inflation rates for some countries have never been as low for as long," said Joaquim Almunia, the financial and monetary affairs commissioner.

Other advantages included better protection against currency fluctuation, a reduction in the cost of imported goods, a rise in exchange and investment within the Euro zone, thus reducing dependence on outside trade, and the practical benefits of using the same currency across the Union.

No damages for whistle-blower victimised by the EU – Private Eye, 27 October 2006
To the surprise of no one, German reporter Hans-Martin Tillack has lost his latest court case in which he alleged victimisation by Brussels institutions after he exposed fraud at the EU's Eurostat agency.

Tillack went to the EU Court of First Instance in Luxembourg after Belgian police raided his home in March 2004, detaining him and confiscating several years' worth of files. The police staged the raid after a tip-off from the EU anti-fraud office, OLAF. The supposed "fraud-busters" told the police that Tillack had bribed officials to obtain documents concerning the "vast enterprise of looting" (OLAF's own words!) at Eurostat.

Since then Tillack, to whom sources will no longer speak and who still hasn't had his files returned, has seen his career blighted as he has fallen into a black hole between the institutions.

OLAF, whose officers stitched him up in the first place, says the police raid was nothing to do with them: the organisation merely passed on information to Belgium's police. In the latest judgment, the court agreed, saying OLAF had "formulated in a hypothetical way" its allegations and they had no binding effect. Therefore OLAF's forwarding of the information cannot be annulled and Tillack cannot have any damages.

The European Ombudsman, meanwhile, has supported Tillack and accused OLAF of making "misleading statements" about the case. Prompted by the Ombudsman, OLAF admitted it had no proof for the bribery claims – they were merely rumours circulated by European Commission officials.

But this was nearly a year and a half ago. The Ombudsman forwarded a report on the affair to the European Parliament – the ultimate recourse – which promptly decided to sit on it pending another court case.

This will see Tillack take Belgium to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over the police raid. The European Federation of Journalists is confident Tillack will ultimately win and obtain some redress against the "very arrogant" OLAF. But don't expect this to happen any time soon.

Take an exam in pro-Brussels bias – Christopher Booker, 6 August 2006
When "Europe Minister" Geoff Hoon recently wrote to Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Education, urging him to arrange for lessons on the "benefits" of Britain's membership of the EU to be part of the National Curriculum, this was only the latest example of the Foreign Office's tireless efforts to get EU propaganda into Britain's schools.

In June, in the latest AS Politics paper set by EdExcel, Britain's largest exam provider, the most marks were reserved for this question: "Argue the benefits of further EU integration."

When the bias of this was queried by the Democracy Movement, EdExcel replied that it had tried over the years to keep a balance in the half of its papers now regularly devoted to "European Integration" (with impartial questions such as: "What are the advantages of European integration?")

But there are no questions on the disadvantages of integration. The closest it came to this was asking candidates in 2005 to give arguments both for and against the European Constitution. EdExcel's teachers' guide, recommending helpful sources of information, cites a long list of pro-EU organisations, but not one that is remotely Euro-critical.

The game was rather given away in 2000, when Sir Stephen Wall, then Britain's senior representative in Brussels, wrote in a leaked email to the Cabinet Office: "The EU is only in the GCSE Modern History curriculum thanks to FCO pressure on the DfEE last year, so I suspect there is a lot more that could be done. Something I plan to pursue in a future incarnation." Sir Stephen's next "incarnation" was as Tony Blair's chief adviser on Europe at Number 10.

Curiously, despite all the efforts of Sir Stephen and Co, the polls consistently show the most Eurosceptic age-group in Britain to be 18-24 year olds. Perhaps all that propaganda produces exactly the response one might expect from teenagers who suspect they are being told a pack of very boring lies.

Convincing the Germans – Die Welt (German newspaper), 22nd June 2006
So we’re all agreed. One year after the “no” votes, the leaders of the EU have decided to make the text binding by 2009. The new Italian government says it interprets the “no” votes as “a demand for more Europe, not less”. The Belgian government suggests changing the rules so that the European Constitution may be adopted by a qualified majority vote. Wolfgang Schuessel says that ratification should be completed in 2007. Angela Merkel says the text is “vital to German interests”. The European Commission plans to push ahead with as much of the constitution as it can, with or without formal approval.

Am I forgetting anyone? Oh yes, there is one lonely voice of dissent: that of the ordinary citizen who, when invited to express an opinion on the Constitution, usually rejects it. Opinion has swung against the constitution over the past 12 months, both in France and the Netherlands and in those countries whose governments pushed ahead with ratification.

The distinction between governments and peoples has been explicitly acknowledged by the constitution’s chief author, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. “It is not France that has said ‘no’ to the constitution,” he said last week, “it is 55 per cent of French people.” France, in other words, is represented, not by its ill-informed population, but by its former President. “L’état, c’est Giscard.”

Giscard is turning on its head a principle which Europeans have spent 300 years fighting to establish, namely that rulers should be accountable to their people. To be fair, he is not alone. A certain disregard for democracy is integral to the European project. Eurocrats are well aware that the EU would never have got to where it is today if each successive transfer of power to Brussels had been referred to the national electorates for approval. They see no dishonour in this; on the contrary, they are forever congratulating themselves on their determined leadership.

Jean-Claude Juncker was at it again this week, urging Europe’s governments to ignore their voters. In an interview with the radio station Deutschlandfunk, he said: “If Kohl and Waigel had held a consultation exercise, we would never have had the euro.” Indeed. And would that have been such a bad thing? I can’t help noticing that, since the euro was introduced in 1999, the EU members with the highest growth rates have been the ones that stayed out: Britain, Denmark and Sweden. And why did they stay out? Because they had to consult their peoples.

In contrast, you Germans seem content to contract out the whole question to your politicians. While this column, I have received many letters from readers of Die Welt – always, by British standards, courteous and well argued. Some of you, naturally enough, think I am writing rubbish. But I have been struck by how many have said things like, “I think as you do, but no one in Germany can say these things.” Well, my friends, that is up to you. If you are content with the Brussels racket, with the unaudited accounts, with the self-serving bureaucracy, with the one-way centralisation of power, with the open contempt for the democratic verdict of the national electorates, fine. But if you are worried about what is going on, for Heaven’s sake say so. To hand away your freedoms for the sake of politeness – that, surely, would be going too far.

Commission charm offensive paves way for EU Constitution's return – Open Europe, 12th May 2006
There has been a flurry of activity in Brussels over the last two weeks in preparation for a meeting of EU foreign ministers on 27 May and the summit of EU leaders on 15-16 June. Politicians' efforts have focussed on two key areas – the best way to bring back the EU Constitution, and how to improve the EU's popularity.

The two are obviously closely related; the EU needs to rapidly win over voters' hearts and minds if its attempts to bring back the Constitution are going to be successful. The Commission's latest eurobarometer poll shows that support for the EU is falling – less than 50 percent of voters now believe that their country's EU membership is a "good thing".

So far, the Commission's strategy to overcome this growing public hostility to the EU project has mainly centred on trying to better 'connect' with voters by improving its communication and presentation. But another strand of thinking in Brussels argues that the EU needs to be made more relevant to the masses, and that the EU's popularity will only rise if people can see how it "adds value" to their daily lives.

Thus on Wednesday Commission President Jose Barroso outlined 12 new initiatives which he declared were the "Citizens' Agenda" and would "deliver real results for Europe". He announced that these initiatives would include a review of the single market and a parallel review of the EU's social policies, a paper on the ability of the EU to expand further and a study of how the EU can gain greater access to overseas markets. He also set out plans to give national parliaments better access to EU legislation.

Another Commission attempt to improve voters' opinions of the EU is its proposal to develop an EU citizens' "entitlement card" intended to make people aware of their rights and the benefits bestowed on them as EU citizens. It is not yet clear how much the entitlement card will cost or even if member states will allow it to go ahead.

By far the most significant and controversial idea in the "Citizens' Agenda" is the Commission's proposal to abolish national governments' vetoes over criminal justice, police co-operation and the fight against terrorism. Barroso said that he wanted to "transfer to the Community a large number of the decisions in the fields of justice, freedom and security that can be dealt with more effectively at European level than at national level".

He asked national leaders whether there would need to be "another terrorist attack" before they agreed to give up the veto in this area.

He claimed that the move would have popular support. "The most effective response in the field of security is the European response," he said. "People are asking for 'more Europe' in order to combat terrorism and organised crime. It is our duty to respond to this appeal, with or without a Constitution."

The British Government has signalled that it is likely to agree to give up the veto in this area, despite this being one of Tony Blair's 'red lines' in the negotiations on the EU Constitution.

Jose Barroso made it clear that his "Citizens' Agenda" is intended to "set the conditions that will provide the opportunity for a future institutional settlement". The Commission is paving the way ahead, attempting to convince voters of the merits of the EU in time for its second attempt to push through the EU Constitution.

But it is not just citizens that are being targeted by the Commission. In a speech on Tuesday Barroso said that he was "challenging national leaders: are you or are you not committed to the European Projet de vie commun?"

The Commission aims to get national leaders to pledge their allegiance to the Constitution in a declaration to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. The declaration will reaffirm each country's commitment to reforming the EU's institutions and will give the Commission a mandate to revamp the EU Constitution by 2008.

Significantly the declaration is to be modelled on the 1955 Messina Declaration by the original six founders of the EEC. The Messina Declaration reaffirmed these countries' commitment to the "establishment of a united Europe" after the French vetoed moves to closer defence cooperation.

Adding further momentum to the Commission's drive to resurrect the EU Constitution, Estonia became the fifteenth country to ratify the text on 9 May. The Finnish parliament will ratify the Constitution on the first day of its EU Presidency on 1 July.

The country which takes over the EU's helm after Finland is Germany. In her first major EU speech in the Bundestag this week German Chancellor Angela Merkel also stressed her commitment to the Constitution. She said, "We absolutely need the Constitution to ensure the European Union is effective and capable of action. We need to think about how we make the Constitution a success. I want the Constitution, the German government wants the Constitution and I think a majority of this parliament wants it too." (11 May)

She warned her fellow leaders, particularly those in the UK and Holland, that they would not be able to avoid the Constitution forever: "If it's not tackled before, you can be sure that the German presidency will focus on this" in 2007.

A political declaration signed by all 25 heads of government would be the biggest step so far to bringing back the EU Constitution. It will be interesting to see if the UK and other governments such as Holland and Poland will agree to sign up to it.

Tomatoes will decide Europe’s future – David Rennie, 6th May 2006
Like a penitent sinner, or an addict entering recovery, the European Union has developed a fondness for confessing it has lost the public’s confidence. Among EU leaders and top Eurocrats, there is much talk of ‘reconnecting with citizens’. To know why you should be sceptical, go to the ancient bazaars of Ioannina and ask shoppers what they think of the euro single currency. In common with consumers across the rest of Greece, indeed across much of Europe, Ioannina residents accuse the single currency of triggering runaway inflation since it was introduced four years ago.

EU leaders worry about excessive public deficits in countries that adopted the euro, and a lack of convergence in national growth rates. In Ioannina shoppers worry about soaring prices for parsley and tomatoes. Local politicians worry that Greek families are running up huge personal debts, as the low interest rates of the euro-zone encourage banks to issue credit cards to consumers who have only ever known a cash economy. While the Eurocrats’ minds have been fixed on high ideals of monetary union, their beloved single currency is becoming a public relations disaster.

In the metal-workers’ bazaar of Ioannina, not far from Ali Pasha’s fortress, Lukia Piteni presides over a tiny agricultural ironmongers. Her shop looks as though it has hardly changed since it began selling handmade sheep bells, wool-shears and stout dog collars to local shepherds in 1934. ‘Everyday shopping is much more expensive,’ Mrs Piteni says. Some prices have been tripled, or worse, by the euro.

A street away in the tailors’ quarter, she is echoed by Amalia Yiannaki, perched behind her sewing machine stitching new police uniforms. ‘From one day to the next, prices go up,’ Mrs Yiannaki says. ‘Inflation was much lower in the old days. Greeks are extremely angry.’ Her last two sentences contain the challenge now facing Eurocrats.

Mrs Yiannaki is factually wrong when she says that inflation used to be lower in Greece. She is right when she says that Greeks are angry about the euro, and blame it for sky-rocketing prices. In the early 1990s average annual inflation in Greece ran at a whopping 13.8 per cent. Later in the 1990s, as Greece battled to meet the entry requirements for the euro (a process that also included cooking the books to hide chunks of government spending), inflation dropped to below 5 per cent. According to the latest EU data, Greek annual inflation is now running at about 3 per cent.

Since the euro was introduced, citizens of the 12-nation ‘eurozone’ have turned against it. Nearly 60 per cent of eurozone citizens said the euro was good for their country just after it was introduced. In the latest ‘Eurobarometer’ survey to be made public by the European Commission, that number has fallen to 51 per cent, and to 39 per cent among Greeks.

Asked if the euro had caused prices to increase unusually, 95 per cent of Greeks say yes. The figure is 97 per cent in Spain, and the EU average is barely lower: 93 per cent.

In private, such beliefs leave Eurocrats pale with rage. ‘Nonsense,’ snapped one Commission official when asked about Greek complaints of tripled prices. ‘These people must have Alzheimer’s; they’ve forgotten what things cost before.’

The Commission recently published a marginally more tactful leaflet entitled ‘Did the euro cause prices to rise? Perceptions and reality’. It accuses some local businesses of skewing public perceptions of inflation by sneakily hiking the prices of some everyday goods, like haircuts, coffee and dry-cleaning.

The Commission insists that the overall impact of abuses is minuscule, and involves only certain small, everyday goods. Officials often cite an estimate that abuses added an extra 0.3 per cent to prices in the first year after the euro was introduced. The problem is that ordinary people — as opposed to economists — pay disproportionate attention to the price of exactly those small goods, bought with cash from their pockets.
Last month a Greek consumer research centre calculated that the prices of goods including bread, soft drinks, olive oil and coffee had risen between 20 and 147 per cent since Greece switched to the euro. The sharpest price rises have been in the cheapest goods — a pattern repeated across southern Europe, and especially in countries which had large-denomination currencies and used few coins.

Put crudely, in Greece, where one euro replaced 340 drachma, it is hard for many consumers to get upset about a price increase of a few dozen cents, or a couple of euros. Thus café owners who once charged 600 drachmas for a cup of coffee find it possible to charge four euros (£2.70) for the same cup, because it does not feel more expensive — though that is the same as 1,360 drachmas. In street markets, traders shifted decimal points across, so that a 100-drachma bunch of parsley became a one-euro bunch — a 340 per cent increase.

Constantine Papadopoulos, adviser on European affairs at a large Greek commercial bank, EFG Eurobank, explains how such rises can co-exist with low overall inflation. ‘The things that have gone up sharply are the cheapest items: newspapers, milk or tomatoes. There is a lack of competition in the market, so sellers of certain items can charge more without fear of their rivals taking business away from them. But durable goods have come down dramatically: cars, electronic goods. Air-conditioning units are everywhere now. Those durable things actually dominate a family’s annual budget, but people don’t come home from buying them and say what a bargain they got.’

A common tip used to be 100 drachma — the smallest banknote. Now it is considered embarrassing to leave less than two euros, though that is nearly 700 drachma. The governor of the Bank of Greece, Nicholas Garganas, went on television last month, urging viewers not to be ashamed of leaving the equivalent of a 100 drachma tip. That was what he did, Mr Garganas said, adding that inflation was not out of control. His message was somewhat lost, shortly afterwards, under the weight of angry viewers’ calls dubbing him a liar.

Amelia Torres, European Commission spokesman for the single currency, says she has no patience with anyone who carelessly tips with whole euros, including her husband. ‘I refuse to admit that it’s difficult to take small numbers seriously. It’s your money, you should take it seriously.’

The merchants of Ioannina take money seriously. Their narrow lanes of low wooden stalls and shops have been a commercial centre for the Balkans since the Middle Ages. Nineteenth-century British travellers were particular fans, from Edward Lear to the young Benjamin Disraeli. Henry Holland, later physician to Queen Victoria, lost his greatcoat — and nearly his life — to two vast night watchdogs in the bazaar, after misjudging closing time. Lord Byron dawdled in the bazaar after his audience with Ali Pasha, Ioannina’s Albanian tyrant, while his companion John Cam Hobhouse grumbled tiresomely about finding no one to repair his umbrella.

At her agricultural ironmongers, Mrs Piteni has barely raised prices since the changeover to the euro. She draws a clear distinction between the young locals and tourists drinking Greek coffee on the lakeside, and her customers — grizzled, sinewy shepherds who must guard their flocks from wolves, bears and eagles in the high Pindos mountains. ‘Coffee is for tourists and people who want to sit around in a restaurant. Young people think it’s natural to pay that kind of money. Our customers are careful with their money; they bargain. They are not the kind to drink coffee for three euros a cup.’

Ironically, Greeks who are angry at the euro largely blame the Greek government, not Brussels. The EU is still seen as a welcome alternative to corrupt, incompetent local officialdom.

In Italy a minister in the Berlusconi government, Roberto Maroni, caused a storm when he proposed a return to the lira last year. There has been no such talk in Greece, notes Nikos Georgiadis, a fast-rising young MP from the ruling Nea Demokratia party. ‘You won’t find anyone under 70 saying, let’s go back to the drachma. The drachma was very unstable: it was devalued 20 per cent every other year at the beginning of the tourist season, to boost tourism,’ he says.

Mr Georgiadis argues that perceptions of inflation are being whipped up by the Greek media. ‘They keep sending reporters to markets, where they find old ladies saying, “Oh, I can’t afford tomatoes any more.” Well, buying tomatoes in April in Greece is not a very good idea, they’re out of season.’ Voters accuse the young MP of being a liar when he tells them prices for groceries have fallen, overall. ‘I say: “Look guys, look at the figures.” They say: “Figures are figures, we know what our pockets tell us.”’

Mr Georgiadis is more worried that the euro has made Greek banks too willing to extend loans to his constituents. ‘There has been an explosion in consumer credit — people have been overdoing it, and they are not very mature about loans. So their disposable income is diminishing.’

Tomatoes and overworked credit cards. This is not grand stuff, not the sort of thing to spark debate among Brussels grandees. But it is what people tell you on the streets, when asked about the euro. Ioannina’s shoppers are angry. Is Brussels listening?

New plans to push through EU constitution – Telegraph, 25th March 2006
MEPs are planning to force Britain, France and the Netherlands to accept European Constitution by getting the document ratified in the European Union's other member states, Ukip has claimed.It is widely believed that the Constitution – which requires unanimous agreement by the EU's 25 member states – was killed off by its rejection by voters in two referendums in France and the Netherlands last year.

But Ukip claimed today that supporters of the Constitution are planning to use a little-known clause to restart the ratification process.

The clause in the document drawn up by Valery Giscard d'Estaing's Convention on the future of Europe states that if four-fifths of members ratify, EU leaders should meet in the European Council to discuss what to do next, said Ukip.

The party's leader in the European Parliament, Nigel Farage, said: "The plan now is to have 17 countries that ratify the Constitution through their own parliaments by Christmas and then, early next year, to try to push countries like Ireland and Denmark to say Yes.

"If they can get 20 countries to agree, then they could push on, this time next year, with their European Constitution in legal terms and say to the French and the Dutch and British and Polish 'Look chaps, unless you accept this Constitution, you will have to leave the EU'."

Mr Farage said that supporters of the Constitution hoped to pressurise France into re-running its referendum under a new leader after the presidential elections in 2007, when Jacques Chirac is expected to leave office.

"When you deal with the EU, you are dealing with inherently dishonest politicians who are determined at any cost to force their model onto the peoples of Europe," he said.

"They said it needed unanimity, but now they are falling back on this little clause tucked away at the back of the document."

Back from the dead – the Economist, 7th January 2006

What part of "no" do European integrationists not understand? Every part, apparently
In one ancient fable, a frog falls into a pail of milk. Unable to scramble out, the creature thrashes around, seemingly drowning. Eventually, however, his frantic struggles churn the milk into butter – and he hops away. Some European Union leaders seem to see themselves as this frog. They suffered a huge defeat over the EU constitution, but they think that, if at first they did not succeed, they should just try, try again.

That, at any rate, may explain attempts to resurrect a constitution that only six months ago seemed to have been killed by French and Dutch voters. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that "this constitution has so many positive elements that we must not abandon it." Both her spokesman and the leader of her party in the European Parliament say that reviving the constitution will be Germany's top priority when it takes the EU's rotating presidency in the first half of 2007. If it fails, says Portugal's president, José Socrates, Portugal will take up the task in the second half.

Perhaps integrationists will get their wish even sooner. Wolfgang Schüssel, Austria's chancellor, is in charge of the EU just now, and he insists that the constitution is not dead. In theory, the EU is in the middle of a year-long "pause for reflection", which its leaders decreed after the French and Dutch referendums. But why wait? The Austrians are talking of working out by the middle of 2006 how to take the constitution forward. Yet this drift towards reviving a dead text has as much plausibility as the Danube suddenly turning blue. All 25 EU members must ratify the constitution before it can come into force – and that seems an impossibly remote prospect.

It might have been possible to wiggle out of the unanimity requirement, or to insist on a second referendum, if the refusenik were a single small country, or an awkward cuss, such as Britain. But France and the Netherlands, both founder members, cannot be either sidelined or wished away. Their present leaders could not possibly risk the voters' wrath by trying to pass in parliament a charter that had been rejected by the people. No serious politician in either country has been foolhardy enough to call for a new referendum.

Besides, the French and Dutch are not isolated. Britain would be likely to reject the constitution if it were put to the vote. So might Sweden or Denmark, and perhaps one or more of the central Europeans. Thus, quite apart from the little question of respecting the will of the people when they have spoken, demands to resurrect the constitution are up against the practical problem that half a dozen countries cannot now ratify it.

Why are people falling over themselves to promote something that cannot succeed? Perhaps the politicans think they can change voters' minds. They did so after 1992, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty, and again after 2001, when Ireland rejected the Nice one. The politicians may even be right this time, too: the voters may change their minds – one day. But at present support for the EU is falling, suggesting that the constitution may be even less popular than it was.

Perhaps some of the politicians calling for a revival of the constitution are simply trying to burnish their European credentials. Ms Merkel might be calculating that bit of windy Euro-talk is an easy way to establish herself as the true and only heir to the Europhile Helmut Kohl. Or perhaps, to be more generous, European leaders genuinely believe that the EU is unworkable without the institutional reforms in the constitution, such as the new voting rules, a separate foreign minister and the abolition of the musical-chairs presidency. In this, too, they may be right. But even if they are, the politicians are going a funny way about getting matters changed, since sticking with the whole constitution and nothing but the constitution will make it even harder to rescue any of its useful bits. It would surely be easier to try to carve up the corpse for the organs, rather than try to jolt the whole thing lumberingly back to life.

The fact is that this is one of those moments when the EU's integrationist impulse is overriding both democracy and natural caution. The budget crisis is over and there is no other displacement activity (except perhaps energy security). The pretence of a pause for reflection has been largely abandoned. The text of the constitution also encourages ratification to continue despite the French and Dutch rejections. Fourteen countries have now ratified it, setting up the possibility, envisaged in a declaration annexed to the treaty, of a showdown with the few that have not.

The perpetual-motion machine
Indeed, Europe's integrationist drive is so strong that it keeps popping out. Guy Verhofstadt, prime minister of Belgium, has written a book, "The United States of Europe", that argues for closer co-operation (including political co-operation) among the 12 euro-zone countries. Such demands for integration are so strong that something is likely to come of them, though whether it is co-operation within the euro-zone, sovereignty-sharing arrangements under the existing treaties, or cherry-picked bits of the constitution is hard to say.

But to go back to the constitution as if nothing had happened – or to argue that what happened was so long ago that nobody should worry about it – seems a dangerous strategy. It risks precipitating a huge split between the countries that want the constitution and those that do not, as well as alienating long-suffering voters everywhere.

Before they go down this road, Europe's leaders might ponder another fable, this one by Aesop. The frogs are living happily in a pond, until they decide they need a proper king (and constitution). They ask Jove for one. First he sends a log, but they get bored by such a passive ruler. Then he sends an eel, but it proves too easygoing. So the frogs demand another ruler, and an infuriated Jove sends them a heron – which eats them all.

Blair shows his true European colours – Telegraph editorial, 22nd December 2005
As a consummate actor, the Prime Minister knows the importance of measuring his words.

Therefore it was notable that he should have launched such a petulant outburst two days ago in response to hostile questioning from British MEPs. In a robust duel with UKIP's Nigel Farage and the Conservative Roger Helmer about what they saw as his betrayal of Britain over the size of our EU rebate, Tony Blair let fly. What he said, as much as how he said it, revealed something about him.

In his passionate defence of his surrender to the European consensus, the Prime Minister showed for the first time in months what a convinced European he is. Having been forced by circumstances and political reality to bury his advocacy of a single currency and a European constitution, he was back on the attack once more in championing a more federal design for Europe. "This is the year 2005, not 1945. We are not fighting each other any more."

Mr Blair should have directed his remarks not to politicians who have consistently defended British sovereignty, but to his main European rival, Jacques Chirac. Unlike Mr Blair, President Chirac does feel he is fighting his so-called partners, and one so-called partner in particular.

What is more, Mr Chirac fights to win, having made it clear long in advance that France's devout commitment to a high level of agricultural subsidy was not a matter for negotiation. No wonder Mr Blair, whose aims (insofar as he professed any) were always unachievable, threw in the towel with an air of studied inevitability.

Still worse, it now seems that the sacrifice of British taxpayers' money that he has offered up, touted originally at £7 billion, is likely to turn out at something nearer £14 billion. So no wonder, too, that Gordon Brown, who would like to keep such money for his own profligate domestic schemes, is so cross with him.

In an especially unpleasant soundbite, Mr Blair told his detractors on Tuesday that they sat behind our country's flag, but did not represent our country's interests. On one level, this is a classic case of a political leader deluded into believing his own publicity. On another, though, it returns us to the sheer dishonesty with which politicians on both sides of the divide have conducted European business ever since the early 1970s.

Objectively, there can be no doubt that Euro-sceptic MEPs have stood up for the true interests of Britain far more than has Mr Blair, with his approach wavering between that of the dilettante and the turncoat. His "1945" remark suggests he has forgotten that we were not actually fighting the French at that time.

He might serve himself, and us, better by making a more accurate estimate of Chirac's strategy, and noting that we are at war with them now.

Now pay your tax direct to Europe – Macer Hall, 21st December 2005
Britons will be forced to pay a crippling European Union tax under a shock plan revealed yesterday.

The swingeing levy – equivalent to 3.5p in the pound for every taxpayer – would go directly into EU coffers.

It was proposed by European Commission President Jose Manual Barroso and already has the backing of senior EU figures.

The move, which would effectively end centuries of British sovereignty and sideline the Westminster Parliament, was greeted with outrage on this side of the Channel.

There were warnings that it could spark a major revolt, with millions refusing to pay.

Matthew Elliott, of campaign group Taxpayers' Alliance, spoke of "no taxation without representation".

He said: "If Brussels does seriously propose a new Euro tax, British taxpayers will have a modern Boston Tea Party and force the Government to leave the EU.

"This is one step too far. Tax policy should be decided by elected politicians, not faceless bureaucrats. We are not represented seriously in the European Parliament and the powerful European Commission is entirely unaccountable." Mr Barroso wants the tax as an alternative to the bouts of wrangling over the EU's budget.

One option would see British taxpayers contributing directly into Brussels coffers through income tax every month.

They could see a separate entry for the EU payment alongside the usual Inland Revenue deduction on PAYE slips.

With Britain expected to pay around GBP 10 billion a year to Brussels in the next budget, it would cost around 3.5p in the pound for every taxpayer.

A more likely option is for the tax to be imposed as a fuel duty. Under current spending levels, that would add around 41p to the price of a litre of unleaded petrol. A litre would then cost around GBP 1.30.

Brussels prefers a fuel tax because it can be promoted as a "green" anti-pollution measure.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said: "No tax is popular but a tax from the EU would be doubly unpopular.

In a week when the Government has given taxpayers' money away to Europe with their surrender over the EU Budget, the last thing British families need are yet more taxes." Neil O'Brien, of Euro-sceptic campaign group Open Europe, said: "After Tony Blair crumbled on our rebate you can see why they think he will eventually give in on EU tax.

"The commission just keeps pressing and pressing these ideas until it gets its way. They never take no for an answer." He added: "Polls show that most people want to pay less not more into the EU. Given that its own accountants haven't signed off its accounts because of fraud for 11 years, the priority has to be reform, not even more money." Mr Barroso's plan was seen as a swipe at Tony Blair, who forged the latest GBP 585 billion budget during Britain's six month presidency of the EU.

The agreement has been seen as a major disappointment in Brussels, with widespread complaints of a lack of cash to cover the cost of former Warsaw Pact countries joining Europe.

Mr Barroso said: "We have to find a way of avoiding such a direct link between national budgets and the European budget." To avoid the regular bouts of horse-trading over the EU budget, he and his supporters want to bypass governments and raise money directly from EU citizens.

His plan is backed by French foreign minister Nicolas Sarkozy – seen as a possible successor to President Jacques Chirac – and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel.

New German Chancellor Angela Merkel is also said to be taking an interest.

Mr Blair and Gordon Brown are against the plan, acknowledging the idea could never be sold to the British public.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The Government has never been receptive to such plans." Mr Barroso, a former Marxist activist turned economic reformer, took over as head of the European Commission last summer. His appointment was welcomed as a shift towards a more free-market European outlook in Brussels.

Foreign Office diplomats saw the former Portuguese prime minister as a friend of Britain who would back Tony Blair's desire for EU modernisation.

Blair EU giveaway will cost taxpayer double – Toby Helm, David Rennie and George Jones, 21st December 2005
Tensions between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown intensified last night as the Treasury disclosed that within five years the deal to surrender part of the EU rebate would cost the taxpayer almost double what the Prime Minister claimed.

Sources close to Mr Brown also refused to endorse Mr Blair's decision to forgo some of the money-back arrangement negotiated by Margaret Thatcher 21 years ago.

The Treasury said that by 2010-11 the agreement struck by EU leaders last weekend would be costing taxpayers £1.9 billion a year.

Until now, Government officials have argued that the deal would mean forgoing £1 billion annually from that part of the rebate that would have applied to spending on eastern European nations - an average figure over the seven years from 2007 to 2013.

However, the £1.9 billion figure payable from 2010 is likely to be locked in as a minimum annual deduction from the rebate when a new budget is negotiated for the period after 2013.

Last night, after Mr Blair had defended the agreement during a heated two-hour interrogation by Euro MPs at the European Parliament in Brussels, the Conservatives seized on the Treasury's calculations.

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said that Mr Brown had exposed what No 10 had been trying to hide.

"The cost is rising to almost £2 billion a year, more than three times the annual increase in Britain's international development budget," he said. "At a time when Gordon Brown is already struggling to balance the books, the Prime Minister has just landed another huge bill on his desk."

A source close to Mr Brown said when asked whether the Chancellor supported the overall EU budget agreement struck by Mr Blair in the early hours of Saturday: "We are not giving a response."

At No 10 Mr Brown's move was seen as an attempt to rile Mr Blair when he is under mounting pressure from the Labour Party over education reforms and plans for a partial ban on smoking.

It is understood that the Chancellor has been privately critical of Mr Blair for failing to extract from France a firmer commitment to reform EU spending before giving up part of the rebate.

Mr Brown is also concerned that the £1.9 billion loss of rebate will have a serious impact on calculations for the Treasury's next spending round from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011 when he hopes to be prime minister.

Mr Blair insists that the deal he negotiated as EU president is a "fair" one in which Britain will pay its rightful share to help advance the economies of eight former communist nations that joined the EU last year.

His frustration at criticism of his leadership at home and in Europe boiled over yesterday in front of Euro MPs as he described his six months as EU president as "a fairly thankless task".

Raising his voice in response to Tory MEPs and members of the UK Independence Party who had accused him of surrender over the budget deal, he said: "This is the year 2005, not 1945. We are not fighting each other any more."

Roger Helmer, a British Conservative, accused him of giving away £1 billion a year from the rebate with only a vague promise of a "review clause" on farm subsidies.

"You will be remembered as the man who squandered Margaret Thatcher's legacy," he told him.

Leaders of the three largest factions in the parliament warned Mr Blair that they would use their powers to unpick his budget deal when it came up for approval early next year.

They demanded more money for cherished pro-European projects, especially those relating to citizenship, and to a common foreign and security policy.

Mr Brown received a record £379 billion in taxes, duties and other revenue last year, HM Revenue & Customs figures showed yesterday.

The figures from the newly merged Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise, revealed the extent to which his stealth taxes were raising Treasury revenues.

Net VAT receipts increased by £3 billion to just over £74 billion and income tax receipts increased by £9 billion to £136 billion, mainly from a growth in incomes.

Mr Osborne forecast further tax rises. He said that a report from the International Monetary Fund showed that the public finances had deteriorated at "a staggering rate" and that tax increases were inevitable.

Regime change is needed in Europe – Telegraph editorial, 5th December 2005
As the American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, arrives in Europe, it is instructive to look at the areas where her country's interests clash with those of the EU. They fall into six broad categories: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Israel, China and what one might loosely call "supra-nationalism" - that is, the power of the UN, the Kyoto process, the International Criminal Court and so on. These disputes are not unrelated; they are linked by a common ideological thread. In each case, the United States is pro-democracy, the EU pro-stability.

In Cuba, Brussels has withdrawn its support for anti-Castro dissidents. In Iran, the EU has pursued a decade-long policy of "constructive engagement" with the ayatollahs. In Iraq, with a few exceptions, Europeans were horrified at the notion of toppling a tyrant by force. In European capitals, unlike in Washington, Israel's status as the region's only democracy is not seen as meritorious.

In China, the EU has not only announced its intention to lift the arms embargo on Beijing, but is also actively collaborating with the Communists on a satellite system called Galileo, designed to challenge what Jacques Chirac calls the "technological imperialism" of America's GPS. And, when it comes to international bodies, the US is almost alone in taking the view that elected politicians are more legitimate than global technocrats and human-rights lawyers.

This difference in approach was, as it were, encoded in the DNA of the two organisations. The US was born out of a revolt against autocratic government. In consequence, it sympathises naturally with democracy, decentralisation and national self-determination. Its founding creed was adumbrated by Thomas Jefferson, who believed that power should be exercised by the individual in preference to the state, and by lower in preference to higher tiers of government.

The EU, by contrast, was a reaction against the pre-war plebiscitary democracy which, in its patriarchs' eyes, had led to fascism and conflict. Its governing principle is the precise opposite of Jeffersonianism: the doctrine of "ever-closer union". Its leaders believe to this day that states are better run by experts than by populist politicians and, just as they apply that belief to their own institutions, so they extend it to other continents. Indeed, the distinction between the two unions can be inferred from the opening words of their founding charters: the American Constitution begins "We, the people"; the Treaty of Rome begins "His Majesty the King of the Belgians".

There is only one part of the world where America does not extend its principles: the EU itself. Everywhere else, this administration has moved beyond the Cold War tendency to do business with local strongmen ("he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our son-of-a-bitch"). George Bush has grasped that undemocratic states tend to export their problems, which makes them objectively inimical to Western interests, however notionally pro-Western their leaders.

But, when it comes to Europe, he is happy to indulge the elites even as they take more power from their peoples. Previous American presidents did not even mention the EU in their speeches, ("our European allies" was the preferred phrase). Mr Bush is the first holder of his office to have visited the European Commission. His ambassador to the EU went so far as explicitly to endorse the proposed Euro-constitution. Miss Rice herself has spoken of European integration in the warmest terms.

How are we to explain this contradiction? It doubtless owes something to Tony Blair, who has called in his Iraq debt by securing the President's support for the EU. It also stems from institutional inertia: the State Department traditionally backed European integration as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, and the policy remains in place despite the collapse of its original rationale.

But Miss Rice should be careful. Forty years of solid Washington support for the EU have not led to any reciprocal pro-Americanism in Brussels. As she has found before, and will find again, Europeans often exhibit a psychotic desire to bite the hand that freed them.

Brussels bites back – Anthony Browne, 26 November 2005
It was perhaps inevitable that the crash in central London of Banana Republic Airlines Flight 101, which killed 453 people and created a swath of destruction across Islington, provoked Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. Few could understand how the judges in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg had the power to overturn the secretary of state’s ban on the airline for its poor safety record, giving it the right to enter UK airspace. As the body-count mounted, not even the most ardent Europhiles wanted to justify the fact that a panel of unelected and unaccountable judges with no known expertise in aviation safety had the power to overrule the British government on banning airlines from flying into Britain. Public blame of the EU was sealed when it emerged that the reason no one could remember the British government handing over this power to the EU’s supreme court in Luxembourg was that ministers had never publicly announced it — no statement in Parliament, not even a press release. They had gone along with the usual EU method, agreeing things behind closed doors.

You may think I am making this up, but the only bit that’s not true — yet — is the accident. You won’t have read about it in the papers or heard it in Parliament, but the government has indeed agreed in principle to give up its final say on which airlines fly into Britain as part of a harmonised EU aviation-safety regime. The main part of the regime — which, an official admitted to me, involves a wholesale transfer of powers from the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority to the European Aviation Safety Agency in Cologne — was announced last week by the European Commission. Whatever the merits of transferring control of aviation safety in Britain’s skies from London to Brussels, Luxembourg and Cologne — and they do exist — don’t expect to hear a debate about it. ‘It is very politically sensitive,’ one EU official told me.

The day after the Commission announced it was taking control of ‘the entire field of aviation safety’, it announced plans to control the regulation of much of the biotech industry. It unveiled ‘new EU-wide rules to facilitate gene, cell and tissue-based therapies’ which will cover ‘all advanced therapies within a single, integrated and tailored European regulatory framework’ — a potentially critical development for the UK, which leads in this vital technology. A few days later, European governments took a major first step to creating a single European defence market, as part of their strategy of turning the EU from simply an economic and political power into a military power, with a military-industrial base to rival America’s. The following day the EU declared an ‘historic’ agreement by its members to harmonise their overseas aid policies, saying it will add to the geopolitical clout of the Union.

And that was all in one week, during the so-called period of reflection after the Dutch and French rejected the European constitution. Reflection is, apparently, EU-speak for exhausting action — and for doing things the same old way.

Newspapers have declared that the EU is in ‘paralysis’, stymied by the anti-constitution No votes and debilitated leadership in France, Germany and Britain. The Financial Times, the Commission’s unofficial in-house newspaper, declared, ‘The prognosis is poor for EU integration.’ But the death of European integration has been very much exaggerated.

Like a disabled person on crutches who defies his disability by climbing a mountain, or the cancer victim who runs marathons, the threat of paralysis seems to have spurred the EU into a frenzy of activity. But the crisis has done nothing to make the EU reassess its most damaging habits, from its protectionist instincts at the world trade talks to its addiction to farm subsidies.

We had to have the constitution, we were told, otherwise Europe would grind to a halt. We don’t have the constitution, but as one senior Brussels official admitted to me, the Commission can actually do pretty much all that it wants without it. Of course, it would be nice to have the constitution, but there are always other ways. The real problem for the Brussels officials is not to appear too energetic without the constitution — or people might think they never needed it.

From immigration to defence, from law and order to biotechnology, from satellite networks to air-traffic management, from energy to university policy, from taxation to research and development, this paralysis is a dizzying frenzy. With Eurosceptics lulled into a false sense of security, power that governments once kept telling us was the sine qua non of sovereignty is being sucked from national capitals to Brussels.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pooling sovereignty — if the EU didn’t exist you would have to invent it. But because democracy, accountability and flexibility work best at the national level, you should legislate at the national level whenever possible, and only at the EU level when absolutely necessary. The government should also openly debate what powers it is giving away and why, if it wants to avoid the mother of all backlashes, far greater than that seen in France or the Netherlands.

At the Hampton Court summit a few weeks ago, EU leaders agreed to create a ‘common energy policy’, stretching from the joint buying of fuels to developing a joint policy on nuclear power. Britain has spent ages fighting off demands for a common energy policy because — guess what? — we are the only country in Europe with major energy supplies and we want to keep those Luxembourg judges’ and Brussels officials’ hands off them. But when asked why he had performed this dramatic U-turn on this strategically critical issue, Tony Blair said that the Commission would no longer interfere so much — it is such a British-style Commission now — and so it made sense to combine forces. Sceptics might say it was a sop to the French and other Europeans annoyed at Britain insisting on modernising the EU budget by spending some money on things other than French farmscape management — but what would sceptics know?

The same summit agreed that the Commission should draw up policies to ensure that European universities stay as competitive as American, Indian and Chinese ones. Education has always been one of those areas that national governments were still allowed to control, but no more. Now it’s a European issue. Just for good measure, they agreed to set up a European Research Council to co-ordinate research-spending across the Continent. Shortly afterwards, the Commission announced a network of spy satellites which, among other things, will be used to check that EU policies are being enforced.

Another foundation stone of national sovereignty used to be taxation — at least of the non-VAT sort. But at Hampton Court all European leaders including Mr Blair approved a Commission paper calling for a ‘more co-ordinated approach at the EU level’ on tax, claiming that it was essential for the Continent’s economy that countries align their tax systems. As if to prove it was serious, the EU hatched a plan for an inner core of countries to move ahead with company-tax harmonisation.

I remember British ministers insisting that the ability to control borders was an indivisible part of being a nation state, which is what we all officially still are (it even said so in the constitution). But the government recently got caught red-handed giving up the veto on immigration policy while denying doing any such thing — although it did retain the right to opt out of any policies it doesn’t like. The EU has now developed a full set of policies on illegal immigration — the treatment and protection that illegal immigrants and failed asylum-seekers can expect, the countries they can be automatically returned to, and re-admission agreements with immigrant-sending countries.

In December, a few days before Christmas, it will announce a full legal migration programme, including harmonised conditions for legal entrants (such as length of residency before being granted citizenship), and a European Green Card, like America’s, allowing immigrants to work in any member state (despite record un-employment on the Continent, the Commission insists that Europe needs more immigration because of labour shortages). Another policy to be announced — neatly combining education and immigration — is that all non-Europeans who complete a PhD in Europe will automatically be given EU citizenship. As one Brussels official said to me, ‘Five years ago, anyone calling for a common immigration policy would have been seen as mad. Now we’ve got one!’

Earlier European summits have nearly collapsed because of the insistence of EU countries that they should at least retain control over their law and order systems. Only national governments have the authority — the monopoly of legitimised violence, as political scientists say — to jail people. But that was last month. The Luxembourg judges have spoken, and now law and order is a Brussels affair. Socialist MEPs, as federalist as they come, are bouncing up and down declaring that the development is ‘historic’.

First of all, the judges overruled national governments and declared that the Commission had the right to require member states to impose criminal sanctions —including possibly prison sentences — for the worst infringements of EU law. Previously, the Houses of Parliament had a monopoly on creating criminal offences, but this ruling opens the way to the EU forcing the British government against its wishes to introduce crimes into British law. If the government is a little slack in actually jailing people for something it doesn’t think should be a crime, the all-powerful Luxembourg judges can insist that the British government upholds EU law by sending British people to jail.

Then, in a second loss of control over criminal policy, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke — so Europhile that he recently told a Brussels magazine that Britain should have joined the euro when it was launched — caved in to the Luxembourg court and agreed that Brussels and all its institutions should have a say over a key part of Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy. He had been trying to forge an agreement among EU governments — leaving out the Brussels institutions — that they should all retain data from phone-calls and emails to help in anti-terrorist investigations. The governments agreed, but the European Parliament, the Commission and the Court didn’t — they insisted it was an illegal interference by national governments in an internal market matter, meaning that the EU institutions should be fully involved.

Mr Clarke now supports this measure going through the European Parliament, giving federalist MEPs and Luxembourg judges a say over a policy that Mr Clarke had told us was an essential policy for jailing terrorists.

It is awe-inspiring, living in Brussels, to see the fight for power between national governments and the EU capital. What is even more awe-inspiring is how the EU capital’s determination to gain power always — one way or another — trumps the national capitals’ rather limp insistence on the need to keep it. The French and Dutch ‘No’ votes may have killed off the constitution. They certainly didn’t kill off European integration.

Nelson must be turning in his grave – Tom Utley, 21st October 2005
At daybreak 200 years ago this morning, the people of Britain woke with the long-familiar threat of an invasion from France hanging over them. Napoleon had had his plan of attack ready for more than two years. He had built a vast fleet of barges to carry his Grande Armée of more than 100,000 battle-hardened troops over the Channel from Boulogne. All that stood in his way was that narrow strip of water and a couple of dozen ships of the Royal Navy.By nightfall on October 21, 1805, the threat of invasion had been lifted for good - although it was not until November 4, a fortnight later, that news of what had happened reached England's shores aboard the schooner Pickle.

The crushing victory inflicted on Villeneuve's combined French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar had set history on a new course that would guarantee Britain's independence for as far ahead as men could see. It was Trafalgar that established Britannia as the undisputed ruler of the waves, Trafalgar that cleared the seas for the greatest trading empire that the world has ever known.

In not much more than five hours of battle, Nelson and Collingwood had made their country a superpower and ensured that Britons would continue to be ruled by governments of their own choosing for more than a century and a half to come.

A game that historians have always liked to play is What If…? It is usually a silly exercise, involving a great deal of guesswork. But we don't need to indulge in much fantasy to answer the question: "What would have happened if Nelson had lost Trafalgar, and Napoleon had been able to launch his invasion of England?" The question is fairly easy to answer, because we know how the French emperor treated the territories that he conquered, and there is no reason to believe that he would have treated us very differently.

It is safe to say, for a start, that the French invasion would have succeeded, with the Royal Navy out of the way. The Grande Armée was the most efficient fighting machine in the world at the time, and these islands were ill prepared to meet the threat that it posed. Within a matter of weeks, Napoleon would have established himself in power, perhaps crowning himself or one of his relations as King of England.

One of the new regime's first acts, apart from sending any organisers of resistance to the guillotine, would have been to sweep away the Common Law, and to establish in its place the Napoleonic Code. Like so many dictators - from the Roman emperors to Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot - Napoleon was a tidy-minded rationalist who believed in universal laws, applicable to all mankind. From a dictator's point of view, the trouble with Britain's common law is that it is an organic growth, based not on first principles, but on human nature and accumulated experience.

We can be quite sure, too, that Napoleon would have imposed on Britain his uniform system of decimal weights and measures - his absurd metres and centimetres, based on mathematical calculations (which have since been shown to be wildly inaccurate) of the dimensions of the earth. Another safe bet is that, before long, he would have imposed a single currency on Britain and the rest of his European empire.

Unlike the earlier French revolutionaries, who thought that Italy should be governed by Italians and Spain by Spaniards, Napoleon was never a believer in nation states. He believed in centralised European government - one law and one authority for the whole of his empire. This was the fate from which Nelson and Collingwood saved the peoples of Britain, 200 years ago today.

Readers will already have seen the direction of my thoughts: on this bicentenary of Trafalgar, the similarities between Napoleon's vision of Europe and the regime now being imposed upon Britain from Brussels are simply too glaring to be allowed to pass without comment.

Like Napoleon, the champions of the European Union believe that one law, one currency, one system of weights and measures, one centralised authority should be imposed upon all the peoples of Europe, whether they like it or not. Like him, they see no place for the nation state in the modern world. They insist that European law should always take precedence over the laws of national parliaments - and to hell with the principle that people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they are governed.

One of the great triumphs of the Europhiles has been to plant the thought in so many people's minds that Europe is the future, and that anyone who suggests withdrawing from the European Union is seeking to "put the clock back". Somehow they have made it the received wisdom that pulling out now would be: (a) an extremely complicated matter; and (b) ruinous to the British economy.

In fact, nothing could be easier than withdrawal. Parliament could achieve it in a single afternoon's business, simply by repealing sections two and three of the European Communities Act, 1972. These are the pernicious clauses that provide for the supremacy of European law over British law. Nor is there any reason to believe that the British economy would suffer from withdrawal. On the contrary, as my occasional colleague, the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, points out in his brilliant pamphlet for Politeia, Voting on the Constitution, there is every reason to believe that our economy would prosper, freed from the daily increasing burden of European regulation. Europe is the only continent on earth, after all, with which Britain runs a trade deficit. The other nations of Europe need our markets more even than we need theirs.

If Nelson had lost at Trafalgar, Britain would have been locked into a centralised, protectionist Europe. Instead, his victory opened up the markets of the whole wide world to British enterprise. Two hundred years on, we could do with another Nelson.

What is the point of voting? – Die Welt (German newspaper), 18th September 2005
There is an elephant in the room. Your politicians pretend it isn’t there. They tiptoe around it, mouthing their slogans about unemployment and tax reform. But its great bulk leaves little room for any other issue.

The elephant, of course, is the EU. All the main parties agree about it, and it has therefore hardly featured in the campaign. But absence of this subject lends an unreal quality to the whole election. What is the point of voting Red or Black or Green when 80 per cent of your laws come, not from the German Parliament or Government, but from Brussels?

That is not my figure: it comes from the Federal Justice Ministry. In reply to a question by Johannes Singhammer, MP for the CSU, ministers were forced to concede that, out of 23,167 legislative acts passed since 1998, nearly 19,000 originated in the EU.

This proportion is not unique to Germany, of course. Similar studies in Britain and in other states have produced the same finding. But in most other countries, Europe is a lively political issue. What I find bizarre, watching your election campaign, is that no one has mentioned the EU at all – except tangentially through the question of Turkish accession.

You might argue that this is a good thing: that consensus is better than division, and that it is nice to see all the parties agreeing about something. But the idea that partisan bickering is harmful to the country has been the argument of every dictatorship in history, from Bonaparte onwards. When all the politicians agree, the rest of us should suspect a plot against the ordinary citizen.

Without all-party consensus – and this is true of all the Member States, not just Germany – the EU would never have got to where it is. Again and again, the EU has extended its competence into a new area, and then, much later, regularised that extension in a treaty. In other words, the politicians have agreed among themselves to transfer a new area of policy to Brussels, and then presented their electorates with a fait accompli. We have now reached a point where almost every area of political life is, to some extent, subject to EU jurisdiction: transport, energy, trade, competition, agriculture, fisheries, regional government, immigration, asylum, foreign affairs, employment law, social policy, defence. Of all your national departments, only two are wholly in control of their own affairs: the Ministry of Heath and the Ministry of Education.

This centralisation of power might have been justified if Brussels had done a better job than the nation-states, but it hasn’t. Look at its record in the fields of policy over which it has had exclusive control for longest. It has run agriculture since 1960, and given us the most wasteful, expensive, bureaucratic, immoral system of farm support in the world. It has run fisheries since 1972, and almost eliminated the fish stocks in its waters. It has run trade policy since 1956, and has held many African countries in poverty by closing its markets while simultaneously dumping its surpluses on them. Yet, despite the mess the EU has made of the policies it already controls, we carry on giving it new ones.

The funny thing is that, when I ask pro-European friends to tell me the purpose of the EU, they usually reply: “to spread democracy”. In reality, the European project has involved the steady transfer of powers, over 50 years, from elected national parliamentarians to unelected Brussels officials. It is commonplace to observe that the EU’s own structures are undemocratic, in that only the Commission may propose new laws. What is less widely observed is that European integration is also devaluing the democratic process within the Member States. None of your candidates can honestly promise to revive Germany’s countryside (because of the Common Agricultural Policy) or overhaul labour relations (because of the Social Chapter) or regulate your borders (because of Schengen) or even adopt a radically different economic policy (because of the euro and the Stabilit