Shame on you, Caroline Thomson

First, the Israeli government did its best to make sure that we could not see inside Gaza by preventing journalists from entering. Now the BBC will not allow us to see the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee for immediate, urgent help for the people of Gaza. The BBC gives two reasons for this. They question whether there is access to Gaza for any aid that is raised. Why does Caroline Thomson , Chief Operating Officer of the BBC, think that she can second-guess the judgement of the country's experts in giving aid (and the UN) ? Perhaps this is just cover for the second reason given. Caroline Thomson argues, "The most important thing that the BBC can do for the people of Gaza is to carry on reporting impartially." So why would broadcasting the DEC appeal affect that ? Because, she says, "it will look to a whole range of people that we are taking sides." She means of course the pro-Israeli lobby in Britain which springs into action when anyone shows the slightest sympathy for the sufferings of Palestinians. Giving in to those people is taking sides. Giving aid to the suffering is not. Presumably Ms Thomson thinks it is OK to pay £6 million to Jonathan Ross but the BBC must not show anyone asking for aid to Gaza. She says she has to take decisions carefully about the BBC's "unique gift of air time. Ross gets hours every week . She won't give Gaza two minutes. Shame on you, Caroline Thomson, shame on you.

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Could anyone fail to be disgruntled, disappointed, disillusioned, dismayed by the dismal, disingenuous disaster that is Michael Martin ? I watched with incredulity this inadequate man's sad statement yesterday. No apology. No acknowledgment of his own duty or his failure to perform it. In true New Labour style he tried to pass the buck to others, the Sergeant-at-Arms or the police. Note his use of the passive - "I was not told that the police did not have a warrant" and "I was not asked the question of whether consent should be given or whether a warrant should have been insisted on...". The passive voice is always favoured by people trying to escape their own responsibility. Is there a bank-robber, a fan of any television detective programme, indeed any citizen who does not know that the police need a warrant to search ? Why did it not occur to the Speaker (£76,904 p.a. on top of an MP's salary) or the Sergeant-at-Arms (salary unknown) to ask to see a warrant ? Can it be, as Dominic Grieve and Chris Huhne suggested on Newsnight that Parliament has now become the creature of the executive and can no longer defend itself ? Yet most MPs are still mealy-mouthed about the Speaker. Time now to stand up. MPs must remember the words of Oliver Cromwell and tell Michael Martin it's time to go.

Education, education, education

I was interested to hear someone introduced on the radio as Professor of the Sociology of Sport at the University of Chichester. How heart-warming to know that the government's plans to have half the population graduate are making such progress. How delightful that the noble pursuit of knowledge is even today developing ever newer disciplines. It is in this spirit that I announce the latest advance in higher education in Somerset, the founding of the University of Chard. I have been most fortunate in obtaining the services of Professor Whitehead for the Michael O'Leary Chair of Aviation Chronology. His longstanding colleague Merlin the spaniel will become Reader in Canine Semiotics, whilst I myself will be inaugurating the new Department of Liberal Isocracy (look it up) and European Meta-Neo-Crypto-Personalism. Applications for new posts will be especially welcomed if accompanied by sponsorship endowments. In particular we still lack names for the back garden and the shed.

Gordon Brown Nose

Why am I still surprised, disgruntled and revolted by Gordon Brown ? Could it be his choice of dinner guests - George Bush and Rupert Murdoch ? No, bad as that is, it's that ghastly smile with which he declared Bush "a true friend of Britain". And people are afraid that the European Union is running Britain !!!!! Open your eyes, Europhobes.

Disgruntled again - very

Someone asked me if I had really not been at all disgruntled in the last six months, when I have written no new posts. Well, yes I was - with Windows Vista, the Halifax, the standard of driving in Chard and all those common disgruntlements of life, but none deserving of your precious attention until now.

I have just watched the lamentable scene of the House of Commons extending detention without charge to 42 days. Some will say that Gordon Brown has reasserted his authority over his party, but the truth is that this appalling decision has been reached not by argument but by irrelevant bribes and threats and the assistance of those famous guardians of liberty (as long as you are a Protestant bigot) the Democratic Unionists. So, like the Bourbons our government has learned nothing from history. Worse still, like the Jacobins and their infamous Committee of Public Safety the government has incorporated a parliamentary process into the judicial business of deciding on an individual's detention.

Can there be anyone left who believes that the Labour government can be trusted to defend liberty in Britain ?

Aberfan has stopped killing people ; Chernobyl will go on and on...

This morning the Today programme (edited by a scientist) reminded me of the Liberal Conference's rejection of nuclear power twenty years ago. During the debate one of the defenders of nuclear power pointed out (rightly) that all forms of energy production involve risk and cited the Aberfan disaster. In my summing-up I contrasted the degree of risk with the above phrase. It was my first and probably my last soundbite. The clip was played on the early evening news on all four TV channels and Peter Snow interviewed me on Newsnight, thus providing my 15 minutes of fame, as promised by Andy Warhol.

Today interviewed two scientists who said that the effects of the Chernobyl disaster had been exaggerated and only about 3,000 people had died. I looked up the subject and found this summary. It turns out that a body called the Chernobyl Forum originally said that up to 4,000 people would die but they revised it to 9,000 and they were only looking at the three closest countries whereas an alternative report looking at the whole of Europe estimated 30,000 to 60,000 deaths. A Professor Mousseau concludes "We really won't have a good idea of the death toll from Chernobyl for at least another 20, 30 or even 40 years". So that's all right then.

144 people died in Aberfan and that number won't change however long we wait.

I vote for Nick Clegg

Not long ago, Chris Huhne spoke to our local South Somerset Climate Action Group as well as Yeovil Liberal Democrats and I told him that I regretted not voting for him in the last leadership election. However, this is a new contest with a new candidate. Seeking selection as a Euro-candidate I attended two regional conferences addressed by both candidates. I have to disagree with Jonathan Calder. It was clear to me that Nick Clegg was by far the better communicator. No-one should underestimate the importance of this talent when the two candidates are so close in policy terms.

I disagree with Nick about Trident of course, but I am not very impressed by Chris' position. We debated the issue at our Spring Conference in March in Harrogate and I invited Chris then to support my amendment to get rid of Trident . We only lost that amendment by 40 votes. If he had supported us, we could have won. Also, he actually proposes replacing Trident by a minimum nuclear deterrent. This does not answer many of the objections to Trident, would still be very costly and probably against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I have also been unhappy about Chris' attacks on Nick. He has repeatedly suggested that Nick supports education vouchers knowing full well that he doesn't.

The crux of my judgement to vote for Nick is based on instinct, not mine but the candidates' instincts. In choosing a leader, I don't just look at policy differences, since as members of a democratic party we all get a say in policy. I ask myself, how will this person react to an unforeseen crisis ? Which way will he jump ? Chris usually arrives at the right conclusion by a careful rational analysis but I think he lacks that great eighteenth century quality - bottom. Nick seems to me to be Liberal by instinct, from top to bottom.

Freedom of speech

Once again the world reels as the Oxford Union debates ! None of the reports tells us what the motion was nor the result of the vote upon it. There is so much confusion here. Of course Griffin and Irving have the same right to speak as anyone else, but that does not oblige the Oxford Union, a private members' debating society to provide them with a platform. As President of the older society, the Cambridge Union, I once invited a team from Cape Town University to debate, having first established that they were not touring to promote apartheid. I did this because whilst respecting the right of people to speak in support of apartheid, it was not our role as a private club to provide a platform for it. This is very different from the "no platform" policies of some students unions, publicly funded bodies which seek to deny the use of all academic facilities to people they disagree with.

Moreover, once the Oxford Union had decided to invite the racists, the students who rightly despise their views had every right to assemble and protest but NOT to stop them speaking. Why could the protestors not understand this ? Liberalism requires us all to resist our own illiberal tendencies as well as other people's.

I think we should be told

Has anyone noticed the amazing resemblance between Jeremy Hargreaves and Quentin Letts ?
Who is really running the Liberal Democrat FPC ?

Annapolis - the long view

Bush's Middle East conference is starting in Annapolis. So far Dubya has shown no inclination to learn from history but I suppose he has heard of the Annapolis Convention of September 1786, when 12 delegates from 5 states met "to remedy defects of the federal government" . Those delegates met for four days and decided that they could not achieve anything because four states had failed to send delegates and four more had failed to get there on time and because they had insufficient power to negotiate. They called for a wider conference in Philadelphia the following May, which drafted the US Constitution which endures to the present day.

I cannot help wondering if the present conference in Annapolis will be similarly hampered by the absence of parties, in particular Hamas, and a lack of powers to negotiate. Let us hope that the conference continues for more than four days and, like the ultimate success in Philadelphia, leads to the foundation of a new state, the state of Palestine.

Blog lag

Apologies to Tristan, who posted a comment which I did not moderate and was therefore not published. My ISP failed to send me an e-mail notifying me of the comment, but I should have checked the blog anyway. I have been told many times that a serious blogger should blog regularly, even every day. Well, I make no claim to be a serious blogger. Some days I am not even disgruntled and some days I just have other things to do.

Limiting EU competences - not a “superstate”

Constitutional Treaty in blue
Reform Treaty in red

15. It would guarantee that the Union will never be a centralised all-powerful ‘superstate’ by laying down:
(a) the obligation to “respect the national identities of member states, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional”;
(b) the principle of conferred powers (whereby the Union has only those competencies bestowed on it by the member states);
(c) the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, limiting EU action to the minimum necessary to achieve the objectives agreed by member states;
(d) the participation of member states themselves in the decision taking system of the Union;
(e) the principle of “unity with diversity”.

CONFIRMED

16. It would merge the confusingly overlapping “European Community” and “European Union” into a single legal entity and structure.

UNCHANGED

17. It would provide a clear definition of the field of competence of the EU, without conferring any new fields of responsibility upon it.

REINFORCED. In fact, an additional declaration has been added to emphasise the limitations on the EU’s competences.

18. It would replace the complex and overlapping set of EU treaties with a single document spelling out clearly the powers of the EU and their limits.

CHANGED. Scrapped in favour of an “amending treaty”, in the same format and style as previous treaties such as Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice.

19. It would simplify EU instruments and their terminology, replacing jargon with more easily understandable terms (EU regulations become “EU laws”, EU directives become “EU framework laws”, and so on).

CHANGED. The old terminology is retained.

20. It would maintain the EU’s tough and effective powers over competition policy.

UNCHANGED. A new protocol to the treaty makes clear that the change in the wording of the preamble does not affect the existing policies, case law nor operational methods of EU competition policy.

Increasing accountability and parliamentary scrutiny

Constitutional Treaty in blue

Reform Treaty in red

8. The adoption of all EU legislation would be subject to the prior scrutiny of national Parliaments and the double approval of both national governments (in the Council of Ministers) and directly elected MEPs – a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international structure.

UNCHANGED

9. National parliaments would receive all EU proposals in good time to mandate their ministers before Council meetings and would also gain the right to object directly to draft legislation if they feel it goes beyond the EU’s remit.

CHANGED National parliaments will be given more time to review legislative proposals – 8 weeks rather than 6.

10. The European Parliament would elect the President of the Commission, on the basis of a proposal from the European Council.

UNCHANGED

11. A new budget procedure would require the approval of all EU expenditure by both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

UNCHANGED

12. Any EU law or any action taken by EU institutions could be struck down by the courts if it fails to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights that was approved by all Member States in 2000.

CLARIFIED. The Charter of Fundamental Rights has been given legal force but will apply only to laws or actions by the EU institutions within the EU treaties. There is a specific exemption to say that it does not apply to the domestic law of the United Kingdom

13. The exercise of delegated powers by the Commission would be brought under a new system of joint supervision by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, enabling either of them to overturn Commission measures to which they object.

UNCHANGED

14. When acting on legislation, the Council of Ministers would meet in public.

UNCHANGED

Making the EU more efficient

Constitutional Treaty in blue
Reform Treaty in red
1. The EU’s foreign policy High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations—two posts causing duplication and confusion—would be merged into a single EU ‘Foreign Minister’, able to speak for the Union on those subjects where EU countries agree a common line.

CHANGED. The merger of the two posts is retained, but the job title “Foreign Minister” is changed to “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy” to make clearer what is actually involved in the post.

2. There would be a new voting system in the Council of Ministers, with a qualified majority requiring the support of a “double majority” of at least 55 per cent of countries who must also represent at least 65 per cent of the EU’s population.

CHANGED. The double majority voting system has been retained, but will be phased in from 2014 to meet Polish objections.

3. More decisions in the Council of Ministers would be by Qualified Majority Voting. Exceptions include subjects that are sensitive for national sovereignty, such as tax, social security, foreign policy and defence. These will continue to require unanimity.

UNCHANGED.

4. More flexibility: where not all countries want to join in a new policy, arrangements can be made to allow groups of countries to do so and others not. Britain can opt-in or out of policies concerning frontiers, asylum and police and judicial cooperation.

REINFORCED. In fact, more flexibility/opt-out arrangements have now been introduced.

5. The European Commission will be reduced in size: fewer Commissioners, with member states taking it in turn to nominate Commissioners two times out of three.

UNCHANGED.

6. The European Council (the three-monthly meetings of prime ministers) would choose a president to chair their meetings for 2½ years, replacing the current 6-monthly rotation

UNCHANGED.

7. The size of the European Parliament would be capped.

UNCHANGED.

The truth about those treaties

I fear that nobody is being very clear about the Constitutional Treaty and its replacement the Reform Treaty. Perhaps some of those who fear these treaties would like to know what they actually say. Perhaps they wouldn't and would prefer to rely upon the scare tactics of The Sun and it's American proprietor.

Firstly, the EU like the UK (and unlike the USA) does not have one document which can be called its constitution. Like the UK, the EU's constitution consists of several documents and conventions about working methods. In the case of the UK, the documents are individual Acts of Parliament. In the case of the EU, they are treaties. Whilst the new Reform Treaty is not a constitution in itself, it is one of the many documents which would make up the constitution of the EU. It would of course have been clearer to have the constitution embodied in just one treaty, but people were frightened of the word "constitution".

Secondly, the two treaties are very similar but neither of them do what their critics say they do. They pose no threat to the UK's supposed independence (unlike, I would suggest, our relationship with the USA). In fact, either treaty would make the EU more democratic and its institutions more accountable

The next three posts set out the effects of the two treaties and how the Reform Treaty varies from the Constitutional Treaty.

Chad Varah has died

Chad Varah, founder of the Samaritans has died at the age of 95 - see BBC report. I never met him and he never met me but he once described me as "The happiest man in the diocese of Ely". My first wife had made a famous televised speech on feminism in a Cambridge Union debate and he wrote a fan letter saying that her speech should be next to every man's shaving mirror and, of course, her husband must be "the happiest man in the diocese of Ely".

Referendums

On Monday night I attended Liberty's comedy show at the wonderful Hackney Empire, "Bonfire of the Liberties". Bremner - brilliant as always. An excellent Iranian comedienne, a female ventriloquist with a monkey - an act full of Brechtian alienation - and, of course, Marcus Brigstocke as compere. It was Brigstocke who sent up the idea of a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty. See Jeremy Hargreaves blog and Jonathan Calder's reaction.

Referendums are poor instruments for deciding anything but are absurd for treaty ratification, which requires line-by-line scrutiny, which only parliament can give. Neither the North Atlantic Treaty nor any other treaty I can think of has been ratified by referendum in the UK. Liberal Democrats were wrong to give credence to the idea that a referendum was appropriate. Eurosceptics want a referendum precisely because they fear the decision of people who will actually have examined the treaty.

...and while I'm on the subject of New Labour...

Oh yes ! One of the politburo, possibly one of the Millibanden, has now advised us to read to our children when putting them to bed. Good lord, I'd never have thought of that if he hadn't suggested it ! But then this is the government which thinks it's all right for me only to see my children once a fortnight.

(Sorry, Barry. Some readers may have noticed some (shall we say) mildly critical comments on my postings on shared parenting by someone called Barry Molyneaux (who by the way does not exist, having an empty profile, no blog and admitting to being a pseudonym).)

Is it just me or is the world mad (3) ?

Now, I admit that I may have dreamed this, as the Today programme does sometimes send me back to sleep. According to a government spokesman, they are planning to send a letter to parents to tell them if their children are fat and what to do about it ! A doctor responded that it was much better to reinforce positive behaviour. That's the plan, the spokesman said. The government will actually send a letter to all parents telling them whether or not their children are fat. Because, apparently, some parents don't notice.

Clearly the government has accepted its responsibility for people being fat (see previous posting). We can expect soon to receive our personal targets, which will then be published in a league table. Doesn't it make you all warm inside to know that we are all in the safe hands of a New Labour government ? Or perhaps just flaming furious that these patronising, paternalistic, bureaucratic fascists are wasting your taxes telling you and your children how to live !

Go on, please tell me I dreamed it. Then it's only me that needs help.

Is it just me or is the world mad ? (2)

A report out today tells me it's not my fault that I'm overweight. Apparently, it's the government's fault. Clearly I should immediately stop dieting (lost 16lbs so far) and sue the government for compensation.