Just a quick note for future reference, as most people who blame the EU for “uncontrollable” immigration (*ahem* UKIP *ahem*) tend not to know what they’re talking about – but also tend not to believe anything you say unless it’s from an “unbiased” (read, “eurosceptic”) source.

As such, from today’s Daily Mail – one of the most fervently anti-EU newspapers in the UK:

“Officers told the migrants that, under EU rules, if they haven’t worked for the last three months they can removed from their host country…

“People from EU countries have a right to travel freely in the EU and can live in the UK for up to three months if they can support themselves.

“After that time, they can only stay in the country if they are working, they are registered students or they are self-supporting.”

See also the (eurosceptic) Daily Telegraph:

“Migrants who have not found work and are sleeping rough will be deported because they are not protected by the EU rules on right to free movement…

“Under EU rules, citizens have the right to stay in another member state for up to three months but after that time they must be able to support themselves either through working, studying or be self-sufficient.

“If not, they can be deported to avoid them becoming a burden on the state and taxpayer.”

And more from the decidedly anti-EU Daily Express:

“Migrants from EU countries can travel freely in the EU and live in the UK for up to three months with no questions asked if they have the funds.

“After that they are only ­entitled to stay here if they are working, are registered students or are self-supporting.”

And finally the (violently anti-EU) Daily Star:

“People from European Union countries can travel in the EU and live in the UK for up to three months.

“After that, they can only stay here if they are working, registered students or self-supporting.”

(And yes, it’s safe to say that I never thought I’d use the Mail, Express and Star to prove a point about the EU…)

If you want to understand Britain’s rather odd relationship with the EU, you could do far worse than read this really rather good overview in this week’s Economist, especially considering its focus on the Conservative party – likely to form the next British government in a little over six weeks’ time.

There are only a couple of flaws (e.g. mentioning a figure of 50% for the number of European laws stemming from the EU, when readers of this blog will be aware that it’s more in the region of 10-30%, depending), and much insightful analysis that tallies 99% with my own views. It also provides one of the best short summaries of the last 40+ years of UK-EU relations I’ve seen.

Below the fold, a few highlights.

Update: It should also be read in conjunction with Charlemagne on eurosceptic think tank Open Europe and the nature of the British press to give the full picture on why the UK is so insistent on remaining utterly ignorant on all matters EU-related.

Continue Reading

Insanely busy in the real world, is all. I even missed this place’s 7th birthday…

If you want to find a bit more EU-related commentary in the meantime, your first port of call should be Bloggingportal.eu – a handy aggregator of 500+ EU-related blogs, with some of the best posts highlighted daily.

If that doesn’t sate your appetite for the most insanely complex political system ever conceived, you could also head over to the Nosemonkey’s EUtopia Netvibes Universe, where there’s a whole bunch more EU-related topical stuff.

If you’re really desperate for Nosemonkey-related commentary, you could also try following me on Twitter – though be warned that on Twitter it’s not all EU-related, I tend to be rather more sweary and rage-filled, and there’s also a number of digressions on London, life, movies, blogging, UK politics and the general idiocy of our fellow man.

I should be back and blogging at some point. Whether it’s soon or not it’s too early to say… (I do have a fascinating post planned on the balance of trade at some point, though…)

I nearly dropped my copy of today’s London Evening Standard in amazement at the 2/3rds of a page comment piece by Financial Editor Anthony Hilton. He’s got a strong track-record for saying moderately sensible stuff when it comes to European Union affairs, but even so – this is the Standard, a paper that was until a few months ago owned by the same lot who run the rabidly europhobe* Daily Mail, and has tended to continue the old regime’s knee-jerk anti-EU attitude on the rare occasions it bothers with the EU at all.

So this, on the Greek crisis and the Eurozone, came as a rather pleasant surprise. Sums up my take pretty much spot on:

“by modern standards Greece does not need that much money. A loan of €20?billion would do the trick — which is significantly less than we in Britain had to put into either Lloyds or Royal Bank of Scotland. Bailing out countries is a lot cheaper than bailing out banks, so the idea that the euro is under threat from Greece’s domestic problems is absurd.

“After all, in the United States individual cities and states go bankrupt and default on their debts on a fairly regular basis — California doing so quite recently — but no one says it will destroy the dollar. And California is a bigger economy than Greece.”

As I keep saying, context is everything. I’m glad to see that there are at least some British journalists who still get that.

Oh, and good stuff from the LA Times – should California try to join the EU?

Update: This from Eurozone Watch from a year ago, looking at the prospects of bailing out a Eurozone member state, is well worth a re-read

* a phrase I don’t use lightly

From five years ago (originally published 4th February 2005) – a repost seemed appropriate as someone asked about my views on European Identity just the other day, soon after a user purporting to be Jurgen Habermas cropped up on Twitter. Despite being five years old, much still stands (update: except the links, which have now been updated where appropriate). Depressingly, the debate has barely shifted:

An interesting short article on the lack of any real sense of European identity gives a nice overview of some of the problems facing the EU, and of the possible outcomes of the proposed constitution, and follows on nicely from some of my recent musings:

In Spain, there is much controversy over whether the Basque people should remain Spanish citizens or whether they should have their own state. In the UK a recent survey of teenagers found that many saw themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh rather than British. An Italian from Milan might find more in common with a Parisian than with a Sicilian compatriot. Yet despite this, a core set of European cultural, political and social values can be divined.

The article also points to another which highlights the take of Jurgen Habermas (he of “public sphere” fame) on the European project – a take which can easily provoke both sides of the argument:

Germany’s thinker de rigueur wrote that Europe’s core states could put an end to Europe’s stagnancy, sooner or later drawing in the remaining states which would be unable to resist. Separatism, however, had to be avoided. The avant-garde core Europe cannot consolidate into a miniature Europe but, as so often, must be the locomotive.

This reminded me of an article Habermas wrote a few years back on why Europe needs a constitution, which is well nigh essential reading for anyone interested in current debates about what the EU is, was, and should be in the future. I may return to some of the points it raises again, as even though lots has changed since it first appeared (it was written just pre-September 11th 2001), it still raises many valuable points. From the introduction:

There is a remarkable contrast between the expectations and demands of those who pushed for European unification immediately after World War II, and those who contemplate the continuation of this project today – at the very least, a striking difference in rhetoric and ostensible aim.

While the first-generation advocates of European integration did not hesitate to speak of the project they had in mind as a “United States of Europe”, evoking the example of the USA, current discussion has moved away from the model of a federal state, avoiding even the term “federation”.

Larry Siedentop’s recent book Democracy in Europe expresses a more cautious mood: as he puts it, “a great constitutional debate need not involve a prior commitment to federalism as the most desirable outcome in Europe. It may reveal that Europe is in the process of inventing a new political form, something more than a confederation but less than a federation” an association of sovereign states which pool their sovereignty only in very restricted areas to varying degrees, an association which does not seek to have the coercive power to act directly on individuals in the fashion of nation states.

Does this shift in climate reflect a sound realism, born of a learning-process of over four decades, or is it rather the sign of a mood of hesitancy, if not outright defeatism?

The contemporary substantification of law means that constitutional debates over the future of Europe are now increasingly the province of highly specialized discourses among economists, sociologists and political scientists, rather than the domain of constitutional lawyers and political philosophers. On the other hand, we should not underestimate the symbolic weight of the sheer fact that a constitutional debate is now publicly under way.

As a political collectivity, Europe cannot take hold in the consciousness of its citizens simply in the shape of a common currency. The intergovernmental arrangement at Maastricht lacks that power of symbolic crystallization which only a political act of foundation can give.

Forgot all about this, as the interview was originally conducted back in October, but it’s in the latest issue of Shift Mag, which focusses on Euroscepticism. Have a gander at the whole lot here or, below the fold, check out my responses to the following:

1. In the blog nosemonkey, you explain your political views. How have you passed from being a small -“C” conservative and entirely anti-EU to a small -“L” liberal and largely pro-EU?

2.According to you, what are the main shortcomings of the eurosceptic group?

3. Do you think eurosceptics could weigh up in EU decisions if people took them more seriously?

4. Five good reasons to be Eurosceptic and Five good reasons to be Pro- European in Europe today?

5. With the adhesion request of Island, with the “NO-YES” referendum in Ireland, a new phenomenon seems to emerge: “EUR-OPPORTUNISM”. Will it be the strongest cement of European Union for the future? And maybe the sworn enemy of Europe as identity ? What’s your opinion?

6. In your blog, you say you are more in favour of the idea of the EU than the current reality. Can you explain?

7. How can the EU get more legitimacy amongst EU citizens?

Please note, these answers were given a few months ago now, so my views may well have changed… I’ve highlighted a few key points in bold on a quick skim through, though – it’s a long one. The last bit in particular, though, is worth a read, if I do say so myself…
Continue Reading

As such, a letter just sent to Private Eye (aimed at that publication’s always entertaining Pedantry Corner):

In Eye 1254, Brussels Sprouts begins with “The new EU Spanish presidency (not to be confused with the EU’s first actual president, Herman Van Rompuy)”. Dull grey Herman is not “actually” the EU’s first president, for such a position does not exist. He is instead the first permanent president of the European Council – assuming you can call a two-and-a-half year posting with a two term limit permanent – a pretty much powerless post whose duties primarily lie in chairing the (roughly) quarterly EU summits between the heads of government of the EU member states.

The President of the European Council is not the only post in the EU to be styled “president” (heard of José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission? Jerzy Buzek, president of the European Parliament? the rotating six-monthly national presidencies that the Brussels Sprouts piece was actually about?). Indeed it’s arguably the least powerful of the four EU presidencies, as he doesn’t get to initiate legislation (like the Commission president), nor vote upon it (like the EP president), nor does he technically have any power to outline policy plans (like the rotating national presidencies).

Hell, Van Rompuy isn’t even the first President of the European Council – the position used to be filled by the head of government of the member state which held the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council of Ministers, the Consilium, or just the Council – related to but separate from the European Council, and not, of course, to be confused with the Council of Europe), and so the first President of the European Council was another Belgian, Achille Van Acker, from January to June 1958.

I know that the EU’s mind-numbingly boring and complicated (see above), and that “EU president” has become a convenient shorthand in the British press ever since the kerfuffle over Tony Blair possibly getting the post, but it is not “actually” accurate to refer to Van Rompuy in that way.

(Cue even more pedantic people than me to point out that the first European Council meeting took place in 1961, making its first president *yet another* Belgian, Gaston Eyskens. But that’s always the way of these things…)

A new year, and we should be looking to the future. I’ve also (appropriately) been looking to the past, though, and pondering how little has changed.

Five years ago: Complaining about the nature of the EU debate and lengthy attempts to explain why the EU is not becoming a superstate (perennial and never-ending discussions, these – the latter covered in five lengthy parts last year: one, two, three, four, five)

Four years ago: Boredom with the EU constitution – which has since, of course, morphed into boredom with the Lisbon Treaty (over which we’re still having arguments, even though it’s now been passed…)

Three years ago: An attempt to explain my political outlook, having caused yet more confusion by not seeming to fall neatly into any of the usual categories, and not being overly consistent in approach. (Something that cropped up yet again just the other day.)

Two years ago: A decision to blog less often, in more depth (which I’ve stuck to more or less, more from laziness and boredom than concerted effort). A possible hint of the growing boredom.

One year ago: Some advice for new bloggers, which all still stands. Trying to pass the baton on to a new breed? Another expression of boredom with the whole thing? Quite possibly.

We now have a new decade, and a slightly reshaped EU – though so little has changed, I have no doubts that all the same arguments will continue. Because the same concerns that faced the EU at the start of the last decade continue to worry at the start of this one: How to reshape the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policies? Which of the near neighbours are going to be allowed to join the EU club, and when? How to deal with Russia? What is the EU’s role in the world? And – most importantly – what is the EU for?

I have a strange feeling I’ll be discussing the same old stuff in another five, ten years, and that we’ll hardly have moved on at all. And in any case, as I noted last year, I’m interested in politics, but I don’t CARE about politics. At the moment, there’s very little to interest me.

So, is there *anything* interesting to look forward to, or is this going to be the third January in a row (and the fifth out of the last six) where I enter the new year largely disillusioned with the principle subject of this blog?

Just to be provocative, like (I obviously don’t entirely believe this headline – I’m a big fan of the subsidiarity principle, after all, and am an advocate of greater localism in politics – but still)… This taken from a reply to a comment on my last post.

First point, worth repeating constantly:

“The EU” doesn’t tell ANY member state what to do. Because “the EU” IS those member states.

If “the EU” introduces new legislation, and the UK has to adopt that legislation, this is ONLY because the UK has already agreed that this legislation is a good idea.

On every substantive issue – even after Lisbon – member states retain vetoes. All major decisions are confirmed either in the European Council or the Council of the European Union – which are made up by the heads and ministers of the governments of the member states.

So instead of “the EU tells”, a more honest phrase would be “the governments of the EU member states agree”.

And then, on to why EU-level legislation and regulation is a good thing.

EU legislation and regulations do affect a sizable chunk of everyday life. And a good thing too – for wherever you have one bit of EU legislation or one EU regulation, that means that you are saving millions of pounds/euros/dollars across the continent – which no matter how much you think the UK economy is reliant on the EU can only be a good thing, because all savings mean the European economy will be healthier.

Why does EU legislation = savings? Because for ANY regulation or legislation to come into force at EU level necessarily implies that ALL 27 member states have agreed that this legislation/regulation is necessary.

It’s not an immense leap of logic to therefore suggest that all 27 member states may well have introduced such legislation/regulations at a national level. And this would cost money in each member state, as each government works out what it wants to do entirely independently, each civil service checks the practicalities and costs entirley independently, and each country implements the legislation/regulation entirely independently. And this would necessarily lead to subtle variations between the legislation/regulations member state to member state.

By doing it at an EU level, the member states can pool their resources to cut down on research costs prior to passing the legislation/regulation, and also ensure harmonisation – increasing ease of trade between member states (as manufacturers don’t have to produce 27 subtly different versions of the same product to comply with 27 different national rulebooks).

All of this leads to savings – both in terms of bureaucratic costs at a national level, and in terms of economic efficiency.

So EU legislation/regulation is, as a general rule, a good thing.

There are of course examples of bad EU legislation and bad EU regulations, but as member states are generally given a good deal of flexibility on the implementation – while still having to stick to the general principle that they’ve all agreed at EU level – there are normally ways to get around it. This flexibility also allows member states to adapt EU rules to fit their own local needs, while still maintaining pan-EU harmony and the consequent efficiency savings – that’s the whole point.

We’ve seen all the intra-European arguments about Lisbon (now in force for a full fortnight) – what we really need is some expert extra-European opinion. So ta very much to Philip H Gordon, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs at the US State Department, for his handy overview.

Key points?

- “the role of Member States in decision-making is undiminished”

- “The treaty… allows for some EU states which are at the forefront of defense cooperation to pursue greater harmonization of their defense apparatus without the limitations of those states who do not wish to participate”

- “the Lisbon Treaty represents a serious effort by our EU partners to streamline their policymaking process. We understand that, as with all efforts to reform complex institutions, this is a work in progress, and that it may take time for the new institutions to demonstrate their impact. Nevertheless, we hope that the changes brought by Lisbon will make the EU a stronger partner for the United States, and increase the role of Europe on the world’s stage. We want the EU to be that stronger partner and we certainly intend to do our part to engage closely with the new institutions, but in the end their ultimate effectiveness will be determined by the will of EU Member States to invest in them.”

Well would you look at that? The United States doesn’t seem to think that Lisbon has brought about a superstate (as some of our more hysterical anti-EU friends seem to believe), but rather that it continues to allow EU member states a great deal of individual power and flexibility. And the United States also seems to believe that – as its supporters have consistently maintained – the Lisbon Treaty is primarily aimed at streamlining the union’s working methods.

Oh, and just to add to what anyone with half a brain and the ability to read has been saying about the thing, Assistant Secretary Gordon also notes the increased powers that are going to the European Parliament – that’d be the increased democracy bit that we’ve been going on about for the last few years.

So, what’s the conspiracy that explains the US State Department echoing the EU’s own line on Lisbon – a line that’s supposedly dishonest propaganda designed to hide the true sinister intent of the treaty? Anyone?

(Sorry for the blogging silence here of late, by the way – very, very busy for the last few weeks…)