Nosemonkey's EUtopia

Rejoice! There’s a new Bribery consultation paper:

“The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I am pleased to announce the publication today of the Government’s consultation paper on reform of the laws of bribery.

Although the crime of bribery remains relatively rare in the UK, it is vital that we, through our actions and principles, remain vigilant and promote high standards of propriety at home and abroad.”

Just as well we’re so good at avoiding corruption, bribery and fraud in the UK, eh? No wonder these new laws are focussed on “bribery of foreign public officials” – nothing like that would ever happen with our own public officials, would it?

Oh, and it may be worth noting that these new (proposed) laws are now eight years late…

(Links courtesy of Labour Watch’s Labour Sleaze page – which I didn’t even get halfway through in compiling that little lot…)

Austin Mitchell’s letter to Ruth Kelly is back again. Can’t tell if there have been any changes, or quite why it was taken down after a day or so, but it’s full of good stuff attacking the Education White Paper (you know, the one the Tories are going to support to demonstrate that their new leader is so utterly different to Blair…) – have a read in case it goes again.

Note to The Guardian: There is a difference between things one writes in a News of the World column and what one does when shadow foreign secretary. One involves populist attempts to appeal to that kind of lowest common denominator that isn’t interested or knowledgable about politics; the other involves convincing the general, swing-voter public that, from a position of knowledge, you share their attitude to international relations.

Oh… Shit… That should read “I HOPE there’s a difference…” What ARE the Tories up to?

What’s the likelihood of Blair following Schr�der’s example once he finally buggers off out of our lives and just heads down the pub? (Oh, and in other German news, apparently they’ve still got an opposition over there after all – something new every day, etc.)

Still horrendously busy, so read European Democracy’s top-notch critique of the CAP, which explains all the many problems, few benefits, and possible solutions rather better than I could. A really rather good introduction/overview of the single biggest problem facing the EU.

Good grief, it really is all change now that Cameron’s been named Tory leader. According to the Guardian, there’s now “speculation that William Hague will make a return to frontline politics and a job as foreign secretary”.

I wonder what Jack Straw has to say about that?

Now, everybody – I’d like you to be nice to the new boy…(via):

“The BBC is about to start a trial series of blogs, each of which will be built using the kind of software employed by millions of weblogs around the world. This is the first of that trial. There are more details about how it works here.”

Following Mr McKeating’s puerile observation, I’m afraid I just had to go and take it too far…

Update: Oh, and they’ve sorted the voting on that Weblog Awards thing if you want to be nice. Ta etc.

A quickie, because I’ve found a spare five minutes and keep forgetting how much of a fucking idiot Polly Toynbee is. Wait – CS Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia are, like, a Christian allegory? REALLY? Well there’s something that no one’s ever spotted in the 50 years since the books first started appearing. A fucking revelation, Polly, you twat.

Does that stop them from being damn good stories (well, apart from A Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle, obviously)? Of course not.

For the record, I despise all forms of religion, and find most religious types self-satisfied bores. But none are as bad as Toynbee, with her blatant attempts to rile the buggers while – seemingly – advising all true Guardian-reading liberal lefties to avoid what’s sure to be one of the films of the month out of an anti-Christian bigotry which would, were it directed against Muslims or Jews, be the subject of yet another 2,000-word rant from the deranged hag hack of Farringdon, labelling anyone who even momentarily THOUGHT such abject rubbish only one step away from shoving people into gas chambers.

And so we enter into the age-old, tedious sixth-former anti-religion bullshit:

“Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to?”

No, Polly, we didn’t. THAT’S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

I would ago into a point-by-point demolition of the tired old “Tolkien and Lewis were racist and classist etc. etc.” bollocks that poorly-read idiots who quickly trawl the internet for research always trot out as well (I’ve written a book on the fucking thing after all), but Toybee simply isn’t worth the time or effort of anything more than violent insults.

Note to any Christians (Christian Voice, I’m looking at you) who have the misfortune of reading this particularly ill-thought-out, deliberately baiting piece of mindless, critically-deficient dross: ignore her and she’ll go away. There’s another article on Sure Start waiting for her just round the corner, and she’ll have forgotten all about this by tea-time.

Note to the Guardian: if you want an actually intelligent, considered analysis of the relationship between the Narnia books, the new film, the Disney corporation, Christianity and the power the American religious right wield over Hollywood from someone who actually knows what the fuck they’re talking about, my email’s above.

Light blogging rather likely this week. Insanely busy. Sorry, etc. Will ramble on as usual as and when I find a moment.

Looks like I’ve made the shortlist for “Best UK Blog” in the 2005 Weblog Awards. Hurrah. Damn tough field though – I’m up against the likes of Samuel Pepys, Londonist, and a wide range of the usual, far more popular suspects (as well as a few friendly faces), so I hold out little hope – my daily readership’s less than a tenth of a lot of that lot’s…

Still, if you fancy voting for me, click on the thingie below, and I’ll whack something in the sidebar tomorrow, most likely. Apparently you can vote once every 24 hours, so vote early and vote often, etc. Ta and stuff.

Following his amusing piss-take a few days back, blogging Grimsby MP Austin Mitchell has returned with an evidently long-considered, demolition of Labour’s Education White Paper. The palpable exasperation of this old Labourite is almost painful. Can’t say I agree with him on everything, but he makes his points very well indeed:

“these principles, while sounding good, in fact drain the under-privileged schools of money (which goes to the expanding ones), good children (who’ll gravitate or be sent by parents and the New Advisers to the schools with teaching ability and numbers). Empowerment of the pushy hurts the humble, the inarticulate, the indifferent and the poor…

“Any understanding of human or even professional nature tells us that whatever promises are made of “no selection”, “serving all” and a “full spread of ability”, the key to success for schools will be results. That means getting more of the better kids to drive the league tables. Surely you’ve researched this and its effects on draining the less successful schools? So let’s hear it for the people. Our people.”

Go read. Good man, that Mitchell – a rarity in the Commons.

Busy again today, so light/nonexistent blogging, I’m afraid. But I really ought to provide some info on the latest rebate spat.

As the rebate’s based on regional spending, it fluctuates from year to year. It’s currently worth about �5bn a year, but is expected to rise to �7bn. On those projections, Blair’s current offer could see the amount Britain receives back drop by �1.5bn a year – in fact, still a net rise of �0.5bn, so not really that much of a concession. All he’s really doing is refusing the offer of even MORE returned cash (which could be worth about �9bn to �10.5bn in the 2007-13 budget period if he took it up).

In other words, Blair’s in a lose-lose situation again. UK critics will be able to accuse him of surrendering to the French, and giving away the one thing which keeps EU-sceptics moderately OK with the whole British contributions to the EU thing. Critics on the continent, meanwhile – doubtless led by France – will be able to point out that he’s only giving up money on paper, not in reality, and that the rebate will continue to rise.

NOTE: All figures above taken from EU Politix.com – other estimates vary.

Some other views and more info:

The Financial Times reckons (and they know more about this kind of thing than me) that

“the move could mean that Britain has to make an additional net contribution to the EU budget of between �6bn and �7bn over the EU budget period from 2007 to 2013…

“British officials have long acknowledged that, without the concession over funding for eastern Europe, there can be no hope of achieving an EU budget deal.

“This is because failure to adjust the mechanism by which the rebate is calculated would leave Britain�s net contribution to the EU budget at 0.23 per cent of gross national income, while France�s contribution would stand at 0.4 per cent.”

The Guardian:

“The best [Blair] can now hope for in Brussels next month is agreement to a review of subsidies in 2008…

“Downing Street knows it has to give ground because the enlargement of the EU means that the rebate will dramatically increase if no changes are made.”

The Times:”In a move to get a December deal, however, Jack Straw will accept on Monday that if the rebate is retained virtually intact the budget system will become gradually too favourable to Britain and by the end of the next budget period, 2013, this country will be the second-smallest net contributor after Cyprus.”

Prof P�ter Bal�zs (in The Telegraph) – “the blame is on Britain and I am sorry for that, because the CAP is a much bigger problem than the British rebate”

Le Monde: “The initial British plans caused a flurry of negative reactions in the new Member States, which were – until now – allies of Great Britain because of its more liberal, Atlanticist positions.”

Jean-Claude Juncker and Guy Verhofstadt, quoted in Le Figaro: “We are worried by the outline of the British project: it is far too tight a corset for the future of Europe”

Another quote from the same article from “an Eastern European Diplomat”: “By lowering the budget in this way, the British buy the silence of the rich countries and turn to blackmail with the poorest countries… They are using divide and rule as in the good old days of colonialism: it is very shocking.”

Finally, I unusually find myself agreeing almost entirely with soon to be ex-Tory leader Michael Howard, quoted by the BBC:

“We are not going to get fundamental reform of the EU budget in the last days that remain of the British presidency.

“We should have been talking about what we want the EU to do, about what the EU is for, and once you have decided what it should do and what it is for, then what it should cost and how you pay for its costs follow naturally from that decision.

“We never had the slightest attempt from the British government to take part in that debate or lead that debate and that’s why we are in the mess that we are.”