Money well spent

British MEPs are joining a 200-strong European parliament jaunt to Paris this week, costing the taxpayer up to £200,000.

The three-day trip, organised by the European People’s party (EPP), a centre-right group, will include dinner at the Palais de Versailles and a champagne boat trip down the Seine.

EPP leaders say it is an opportunity for MEPs to leave their normal Brussels working environment and “discuss security issues”. They describe the break as “study days”.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't "discussing security issues" the kind of thing they normally do - or should be doing - anyway? Not that they're going to be doing a whole lot of discussing, in any case, unless maybe it's discussing whether the white wine is better than the red:

Details of the entertainment are not available on the EPP website but a leaked agenda sent to MEPs and staff reveals a whirlwind of sightseeing and entertainment. The fun kicks off on Wednesday with a two-hour lunch hosted by France’s ruling party, the Popular Movement Union (UMP), at the 18th-century residence of the president of the national assembly, the Hôtel de Lassay.

MEPs will then debate European defence policy for 2½ hours before being whisked away, with a police escort, from their luxury hotel on the Right Bank to a drinks reception hosted at the Elysée Palace by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.

On Thursday they will attend a three-hour debate on energy, followed by a three-hour cruise down the Seine on Le Paquebot (billed as an “immense floating palace”), the largest boat available at the exclusive Yachts de Paris tour company.

The MEPs, spouses and staff will have a cocktail lunch of 22 hot and cold culinary specialities created by Jean-Pierre Vigato, a top Paris chef. Champagne, French wines and liqueurs are also on the menu. Those invited were reminded that “you may wish to bring a sun hat”.

Dinner that evening is at the Palais de Versailles, once the principal royal residence.

Next day there will be a three-hour debate on food security, before another buffet lunch, complete with wine.

So, from the details given above, it seems that they will be spending a total of about eight and a half hours on various discussions and debates. A normal working day, in fact, but spread over three days, and interspersed with plenty of opportunities for the poor overworked (those expenses don't fiddle themselves, you know) politicos to luxuriate.

Aren't we taxpayers generous?

The final nail?

The Czechs have hammered another nail into the coffin of the Lisbon treaty by declaring that ratification must stop.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who is supported by the country's largest political party, called the Irish referendum vote a "victory of freedom and reason" and said "ratification cannot continue".

His view was echoed in the Czech senate.

"Politicians have allowed the citizens to express their opinion only in a single EU country," Mr Klaus said.

"The Lisbon treaty project ended with the Irish voters' decision and its ratification cannot continue," he wrote on his own website, according to Czech news agency CTK.

The resounding Irish no was a "victory of freedom and reason over artificial elitist projects and European bureaucracy," he said.

Premysl Sobotka, Czech senate chairman, also said there was "no sense" continuing with ratification, according to the agency.

So, it looks like we could now see two countries refuse to ratify the treaty. The Telegraph report says that that would kill it off once and for all.

Here's hoping!

Cheers Ireland

Irish Referendum result:

Yes: 752,451 (46.6%)
No: 862,415 (53.4%)

It's not the end of the matter, of course. Our own government plans to push ahead with the ratification process, and I imagine that even as I write various Eurocrats are plotting to force the constitution through, regardless of what the people of Ireland, or anywhere else in Europe, want. But, despite this, the fact remains that today the Irish electorate stuck two fingers up at the EU, and at all those seeking to railroad us all into an undemocratic United States of Europe. And for that we should all be thankful.

Compare and contrast

A lawbreaker:

A bus passenger is launching a legal challenge after being handed a criminal record amid a dispute over a 90 pence fare.

Tom Usher believed he had paid the charge by swiping his Oyster travel card as he boarded the bus in December.

But a spot check by an inspector found that the payment had not been debited.

Although Mr Usher, 37, still had £1.30 on his card when challenged and maintains that he offered to pay it as soon as the oversight was discovered, he was ordered before magistrates, found guilty of failing to pay the fare and fined £90 with costs of £100.

A lawmaker:

Giles Chichester resigned as Conservative leader in the European Parliament after a scandal surrounding expenses worth more than £145,000.

Europe's most senior Tory was forced to step down after Caroline Spelman, Conservative Chairman, demanded that he opened his books to Party auditors within 24 hours, for a "full explanation".

Mr Chichester had at first tried to shrug off a "technical breach of rules", which he claimed, had followed a misunderstanding of the Parliament's financial regulations.

[...]

Mr Chichester's case was not helped by comments he made while admitting a "mistake" during a television interview on Wednesday night.

"Whoops-a-daisy I am shown up to have made a mistake," he said, in comments that angered Conservative HQ in London.

Mr Chichester first admitted on Wednesday that he had broken rules over the last five years, after a change in financial rules, by paying the Parliamentary Assistant Allowance, worth an annual £160,000, into a family owned firm, where he is a paid director.

Between 2003 and 2007, Francis Chichester Ltd, the family company named after Mr Chichester's famous round-the-world yachtsman [father], received £134,499 in Parliament payments, according to figures seen by the Daily Telegraph.

During the same period, the directors, Mr Chichester and his wife, were paid £30,660.

Payments continued into the company until June 2008, taking the total sum thought to be under investigation by the Parliament authorities over the £145,000 mark.

The Parliament first contacted Mr Chichester 18 months ago about a "potential conflict of interests" but pressure built after media reports that Mr Chichester had paid the family firm £445,000 in allowances since 1996.

Another lawmaker:

Another top Tory MEP has lost his job in the second expenses scandal to hit the party in two days.

Den Dover has been replaced as the Conservatives' chief whip in Europe after admitting paying his wife and daughter £750,000 for work.

And another:

Michael Cashman, a leading Labour MEP, has paid his boyfriend more than 8,000 pounds a month from his taxpayer-funded expenses, the Telegraph can disclose.

Documents show that Paul Cottingham was given secretarial allowances worth £8,143 a month to administer in 2002. This was the maximum allowance available at the time. Euro-MPs can now receive an allowance for staff of £160,000 a year.

Back in 1696 Samuel Garth observed that "little villains must submit to fate/that great ones may enjoy the world in state". And boy, was he right! Whatever way you look at it, it is surely self-evident that the three MEPs listed above - not to mention the numerous other MPs and MEPs whose greed has been widely and extensively chronicled over recent months - are infinitely more morally culpable than Tom Usher. But he's the one with the criminal record, and they're the ones who are still "enjoying the world in state", and dictating how the rest of us live our lives, into the bargain.

Democracy, EU style

Plans to eliminate Eurosceptics as an organised opposition within the European Parliament are expected to be agreed by a majority of MEPs this summer.

The European Union assembly’s political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP’s pan-European Eurosceptic “Independence and Democracy” grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and most pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament’s political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.

”It would prevent single issue politicians from being given undue support from the public purse,” said Mr Corbett.

”We want to avoid the formation of a fragmented Parliament, deeply divided into many small groups and unable to work effectively.”

Mr Corbett’s proposals will also give the President of the Parliament sweeping powers to approve or reject parliamentary questions.

[...]

Current rules allow 20 MEPs from a fifth of the EU’s member states to form groupings, giving them a say in the Parliament’s administration and power structure.

Under the changes, the threshold would become 30 MEPs from one quarter of the EU’s member states.

What this proposal shows, once again, is the deeply undemocratic tendencies of the European Union, and of many of its most fanatical supporters. Richard Corbett complains that allowing "small groups" to organise will lead to the "fragmentation" of the European Parliament, which will be left "unable to work effectively".
Now, with the caveat that I don't believe Britain should be in the EU at all, I'll agree that it is desirable that any parliament "work effectively". However, I imagine that my definition of "working effectively" would differ substantially from Richard Corbett's. Because I think that a parliament is working effectively when it is representing the views of as great a share of the public as possible, and when it is closely scrutinising all the measures brought before it, with an eye to rooting out all unnecessary or bad proposals. This model of effectiveness is best achieved within a system which positively encourages as wide a variety of disparate and dissenting voices as possible. Corbett's idea of an effective parliament, by contrast, appears to be one whose members are in substantive agreement on all major issues, and which passes legislation as quickly as possible, without being disrupted by the subversive actions of "small groups", and without concerning itself with any scruples about what the public want, or who they voted for. This model of effectiveness is best achieved in a one party state.

I also note that, while the Lib Dems are, to their credit, opposing this measure, the majority of Britain's Tory MEPs appear likely to join with their Labour colleagues, and give it their full support. Should they do so, then that will provide further evidence that anyone who asserts that the Tories are even vaguely Eurosceptic is either fooling himself, or trying to fool others.

Government's referendum decision to be judicially reviewed

It is with great pleasure that I read that the multi-millionaire EUsceptic and Tory donor (well, we all have our faults), Stuart Wheeler, has been granted leave by the High Court to seek judicial review of the government's decision not to allow the public a referendum on the EU constitution reform treaty. Mr Wheeler is basing his claim on the government's failure to honour its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. His application will be heard over the 9th and 10th of June, and, should he succeed, we will presumably get the referendum we were promised.

Of course, being granted leave to apply for judicial review is not the same as succeeding in the application itself. All that has been established today is that Mr Wheeler has an arguable case; whether he has a winning argument has yet to be decided. In 1993 the Tory peer and former Times editor, Lord Rees-Mogg, was granted permission to seek to have the Major government's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty judicially reviewed, only for the court to subsequently reject his application. Personally, I suspect that Mr Wheeler's case will ultimately end in the same manner, although I sincerely hope that my pessimism proves to be unfounded.

But even if Stuart Wheeler does fail in his attempt to compel the government to keep its promise to the people, his actions may nonetheless do some good, by exposing the government's dishonest and undemocratic conduct. Certainly, he is to be congratulated on his efforts to defend the sovereignty of this country, and to uphold democracy, in the face of a government which seems determined to give away one, and undermine the other.

Verses composed on the occasion of the signing of the EU constitution treaty

We'll hang Gordon Brown on a sour apple tree,
We'll hang the Miliband Brothers, to keep him company;
For that's the place where traitors ought to be.

With apologies to 1930s socialists.

Journalistic Integrity

Did you see that the Independent has been caught reproducing a foreign office press release almost verbatim on pages two and three of last Thursday's edition? The press release, which concerned the new EU (not a) constitution, was published under the grand heading of "10 Myths about the EU treaty", and consisted of an attempt to disprove certain (often justified) criticisms that have been directed at the "reform treaty".

The story was first broken by Neil O'Brien at the Spectator's Coffee House blog, although I first became aware of it via Guido Fawkes (who has also written a follow-up post here, regarding the response of the Independent's editor Simon Kelner). I'd recommend reading these links to get the full story. In the meantime, I actually have very little to say about this. After all, what can I add, which is not immediately apparent from the facts?

European Scrutiny Committee: the "reform treaty" is the constitution

I see that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has added its voice to the chorus of those, both pro and anti-EU, who say that the new EU "reform treaty" is in reality no different from the old EU constitution. You know, the EU constitution that Labour promised to give us a referendum on? According to the committee, 438 of the 440 provisions in the reform treaty were also in the constitution. They added that the extent to which powers were to be handed over to the EU under the terms of the (not a) constitution was "objectionable".

In proclaiming the reform treaty and the constitution to be one and the same, the members of the (Labour-dominated) Commons European Scrutiny Committee join a proud list of luminaries who have made the same discovery. These include Valery Giscard d'Estaing (former French president), Margot Walstrom (European Commissioner), Bertie Ahern (Irish Taioseach), Jose Zapatero (Spanish prime minister), Angela Merkel (German chancellor), Gisela Stuart (Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston), and a variety of (strongly pro-EU) MEPs. None of these people are exactly arch-Eurosceptics, are they? They simply acknowledge what is an obvious truth. Hell, even the uber-liberal Guardian journalist Jackie Ashley recognises that the reform treaty is "overwhelmingly similar" to the constitution, and, in consequence of this, has called for a referendum.

And who, on the other hand, denies that the reform treaty is simply the constitution by another name? Well, members of the government, and some of the more credulous members of the Labour Party. That's about it.
The government may continue in its pretence that the reform treaty is significantly different from the constitution. Indeed, at this point, having put so much time and effort into their lies, it's difficult to see how they could drop the pretence without having to make the disastrous acknowledgement that they have been deliberately deceiving the public for months. Like Macbeth, the government is:

...in blood/Stepp'd in so far, that, should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o'er.

Nonetheless, return the government must. They have committed themselves to holding a referendum on the EU constitution, and with every passing week comes fresh evidence that the reform treaty is the constitution in all but name. To do otherwise than hold a referendum now would not only be a failure to honour an election commitment; it would be tantamount to treason.

Stupid Little Tit(ley)

Labour's leader in Brussels risked further controversy over the revived EU constitution yesterday as he claimed campaigners for a referendum wanted to "overturn Parliamentary democracy".

Um, yes. Because of course, it's the opponents of the EU who have stripped parliament of its status as the supreme legislative body, and who now want to hand over even more of its powers.
In any event, I fail to see how indicating a desire to see the party of government abide by its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the constitution can be seen as an assault upon parliamentary democracy. Surely it is the people (if Labour politicians may be so termed) who promise one thing at election time, and do something else after the election, who are behaving undemocratically?

Gary Titley said opponents of the new reform treaty "hate the EU" and insisted the Government would ratify the blueprint and "move on".

FR says "Gary Titley hates rational thought and debate". Certainly, he seems to be utterly incapable of engaging in either, and it looks like he wants to deny other people the opportunity to engage in the second. There are plenty of objections to the constitution, and there are plenty of people who are actually in favour of EU membership who are nonetheless opposed to the constitution. To declare that all opponents of the constitution (i.e. most people) are merely harbouring an irrational hatred of the EU, and that there is no other explanation for their opposition, is indicative of either deep dishonesty, extreme stupidity, or, most probably, both.

Meanwhile, the BBC has interviewed a number of delegates to the Labour conference (and, I might add, an uglier group of people you would have to travel many miles to see) about their views on the constitution, and, more specifically, the calls for a referendum. Their views suggest that, among Labour party members, Gary Titley may well be some kind of Aristotelian genius. For example, consider the views of Joseph Fitzpatrick, of the Oldham East and Saddleworth Labour Party:

[Brown] shouldn't [hold a referendum] because it isn't a constitution.
If we had a referendum it would not be about the constitution anyway.

It's quite impressive that he managed to contradict himself in the space of two sentences, denying that the "reform treaty" was a constitution in his first sentence, before calling it a constitution in the second. As for the point that it's not a constitution: well, Valery Giscard d'Estaing and EU commissioner Margot Walstrom beg to differ. As does Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. And Spanish PM Jose Zapatero. Not to mention numerous pro-EU MEPs. But perhaps they're all wrong, and Mr Fitzpatrick (and the Labour leadership, whose line he parrots) know better...

Or there's Pat Brown, of Hornchurch and Upminster:

I think there are too many consultations and referendums.

Now, as far as I am aware, the last time we had a nationwide referendum was 1975. There have been a couple of regional referenda since, but they haven't applied to most of us.

We elect people to represent us and if we disagree with them we put our views across in different ways.

As I said before, Labour was elected on a platform which included a commitment to hold a referendum on the constitution, and they are now denying us a referendum. When a government is elected promising to do one thing, and then proceeds to do something quite opposite, the argument that we should accept what they do because we elected them is negated.

I don't think there is any point in having a referendum on a constitution when most people don't understand what it is about.

Ah yes, the public are too stupid to understand. Which, incidentally, is also an argument that one could use against the very concept of democracy, were one so inclined.
But, in any case, I think that, while the public may not be aware of every single detail contained within the constitution (particularly considering that it has been written in deliberately obscure language), they are certainly more than capable of understanding (and rejecting) the very concept of a constitution, as well as the more significant contents of this one.

Even if you explained it better to people, it would just be taken over by the eurosceptics.

What does she actually mean by this? It sounds to me like she regards it as a sufficient argument against holding a referendum on the constitution, to say that people who opposed the constitution would campaign in such a referendum. Not overly keen on popular democracy and open argument, are they, these Labourites?

They don't seem overly bright either. But then, how stupid must we be, that we have allowed these idiots to rule over us?

Menzies Campbell lies and dissembles

I see that Sir Menzies Campbell has added his voice to those calling for a referendum. Well, he sort of has, but mainly he hasn't. To be precise, he has called for a referendum on British membership of the EU itself, dismissing the "reform treaty" as "comparatively minor".

There are two points here. First, when he says that the reform treaty is "comparatively minor", he is lying. The reform treaty is only "comparatively minor" if the EU constitution itself was comparatively minor - after all, they are essentially the same. The reform treaty will entail the handover of a considerable number of powers from the UK to the EU, not to mention the creation of a de facto EU foreign minister, and the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into British law, at a time when the overwhelming majority think that it is we who should be taking powers back from the EU. To dismiss this as some sort of irrelevancy is deceitful, undemocratic, and treacherous.

Secondly, it is to be noted that Campbell has, like Keith Vaz before him, attempted to turn the question, from being focused on the specific issue of the treaty, to being focused on the general issue of whether or not we should be in the EU at all. In fact, Campbell has gone further than Vaz, since Vaz only wished to frame the debate in such a way that it appeared that voting against the treaty would lead to EU withdrawal, whereas Campbell wishes to ignore the reform treaty altogether, and simply ask "EU membership - yes or no?".
Of course, neither Vaz nor Campbell is a big fan of popular democracy. The only reason either of these pro-EU fanatics has suggested a public vote on anything is that they believe that a referendum is now almost inevitable. If it is indeed almost inevitable, then that is cause for celebration.

However, as I have written before, it is imperative that both the referendum question and the debate surrounding it stay focused on the treaty, and are not allowed to turn into a de facto (or indeed, a de jure) vote on EU membership. The reason that pro-treaty elements want to shift the parameters of debate is that while they are virtually certain to lose any referendum focused on the treaty, they would probably win a referendum on EU membership itself, and they are, of course, keen to fight any campaign on the ground which offers them the best chance of victory. Having won, they would then aim to claim their victory as a mandate for all further handovers of power, at least for the next thirty years or so, whether the public wanted these handovers or not.

Goodbye Britain!

References to the Queen could be taken out of British passports in a bid to make them more European, it has emerged.

The new documents, which could be in place as early as 2010, would bear reference to the EU constitution in order to remind UK citizens that they are part of Europe.

The first page of the British passport has historically featured the royal coat of arms with a message from the Queen beginning: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State".

The words go on to outline that the citizen has a right to travel freely and has the right to protection and assistance.

Under new changes, however, it has been suggested that the coat of arms are scrapped and replaced by the EU emblem of 12 stars with the message underneath reading: "Every citizen of the Union".

Well, at least it's honest. Some Tories may pretend that one can be "in Europe but not run by Europe", but the fact is that they are either liars or idiots. As long as one is in the EU, one is part of a proto-superstate, which is now well on the way to being a fully-fledged superstate. The laws of the EU take precedence over British law, and have done since the arch-traitor Ted Heath took us into the EU (or the EC, as it then was) back in 1973. Having the Queen on our passports won't change that; the only thing that will is EU withdrawal.

Nonetheless, while this proposed alteration to our passports does not of itself signify any increase in the power of the EU, it is a sign of an increased propaganda drive by the EU, and of increased efforts to suppress the national identities of individual EU states. One of the problems the EU faces at the moment is that no one, bar a handful of the most fanatical pro-EU elements, feels any loyalty whatsoever to the EU. Some members of the public may have been tricked into supporting the EU, but most of those do so, not because they wish to see the creation of a United States of Europe, but because they erroneously believe that EU membership is in Britain's best interests. Although inaccurate, this judgement does still indicate that the first loyalty is to Britain; not to the EU. All of this is somewhat problematic for the tiny minority - I doubt they even account for 1% of the total population, although their influence is vastly disproportionate to their numbers - who actually want to see Britain (and the other 26 EU nations) completely subsumed within a European superstate. After all, if their superstate is to work, then they'll need to inculcate loyalty to the superstate in at least some of its prospective citizens.

In order to do this, it is necessary to undermine and ultimately destroy the existing loyalty those citizens feel to their own countries. And one of the ways in which the EU and its supporters are seeking to do this is by stripping its constituent states of their very symbols of nationhood, and replacing them with symbols of the superstate. The proposed removal of our identifiably British passports, and their replacement with ones which, while filled with references to the glorious and benevolent EU, make absolutely no reference to Britain, is just one example of the EU's attempt to destroy this country's identity. As the Europhiles push ever harder for their long-dreamt-of superstate to come into being, we will see many more such attempts.

More pressure for EU "treaty" referendum

Gordon Brown faces increasing public pressure over Europe with the publication of a new poll for The Daily Telegraph showing that almost two-thirds of voters want a referendum on the European Union reform treaty.

That, by the way, is the "reform treaty" that has been described as being 90% the same as the rejected EU constitution by the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, as 96% the same by the think-tank Open Europe, as "very, very near" to the constitution by the arch-Europhile Valery Giscard d'Estaing, and as "essentially the same proposal as the old constitution" by the European commissioner Margot Walstrom. That "reform treaty" - not a different one.

But hang on, what's this?

Mr Brown has so far rejected calls for a national vote on the grounds that the new treaty is much less far-reaching than the original constitutional treaty abandoned in 2005 after Dutch and French voters rejected it.

Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, and Ed Balls, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, repeated that view yesterday.

Douglas Alexander is an unscrupulous little liar, and Ed Balls is talking...well, look at his surname and then take a wild guess.

But the YouGov poll discloses that only five per cent of voters agree, with 63 per cent wanting a national vote on the issue.

With more than one in five (22 per cent) still uncertain on the issue, the number could rise far higher as the pro-referendum campaign gathers pace.

I think that Brown will fight tooth and nail to avoid any public vote on the matter. After all, no politician wants to call a referendum that he is more likely to lose than to win. However, it is true that the campaign for a referendum is gathering pace: as the Telegraph points out, even some strongly pro-EU figures, such as the vile Keith Vaz, have called for a referendum. It will be interesting to see how well attended the pro-referendum rally, due to be held in London on the 27th October, will be.

Of course, getting a referendum is only the first half of the battle: having got it, we will need to win it, and preferably by a large margin. I believe that this can and will be done, but it should not be regarded as a foregone conclusion. The likes of Vaz have not come over to supporting a referendum out of any respect for the public voice; rather, they see a referendum as inevitable, and accordingly wish to make a virtue of necessity, and gain brownie points for professing a willingness to listen to the public. I note that Vaz has said that he wants to turn the referendum, from being focused on the constitution, to being a de facto referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU. While I believe that we must one day have such a vote, now is not the time. Vaz wants to turn the referendum into one on EU membership, rather than the EU constitution, because he believes - rightly - that a vote on EU membership will, for now, be easier for his side to win. If and when a referendum comes, pro-EU elements must not be allowed to distort the question in such a manner.

But all that is in the future: the question of whether we will get a referendum at all still hangs in the balance, and the increased momentum of the pro-referendum campaign is something to be thankful for.

Good on Texas

Yesterday, with its unlimited desire to amalgamate power to itself apparently unsated by merely removing the sovereign status of twenty-seven nation states, the EU took it upon itself to begin interfering in the internal affairs of the USA, and, particularly, of the State of Texas. Specifically, as Texas prepares to execute its 400th murderer since 1976, the EU issued a declaration calling on the governor of the state, Rick Perry, to introduce a moratorium on the application of the death penalty. According to the EU "elimination of the death penalty is fundamental to the protection of human dignity, and to the progressive development of human rights".

Astonishingly, the governor of Texas did not take particularly kindly to this act of interference, and, in the politest of terms, invited them to take their declaration, and forcibly insert it into that orifice from which springs the vast bulk of EU legislation. As the governor's spokesman said:

Texans long ago decided the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens.

While we respect our friends in Europe...Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.

Exactly. And, in my opinion, our own dear British politicians should be telling the EU exactly the same thing.

Texas, and particularly its justice system, is very successful at making European liberals really, really angry. They seem genuinely unable to cope with the idea that in at least one part of the Western world, the worst criminals are still getting the punishment they richly deserve. Far better, in their opinion, would be the system that prevails in Britain, whereby murderers get a sentence of "life imprisonment" which, in practice, means a jail term of something in the region of ten to fifteen years.

Personally, though, I rejoice in the fact that Texas, despite the anguished squeals of foreign and domestic liberals alike, continues to execute these scum by the cartload. Long may she continue to do so! And hopefully, we'll see the restoration of capital punishment in Britain too, one of these days...

Going private?

The Tory peer Lord Young has suggested that if, as now appears almost inevitable, the government denies the public a referendum on the new EU (absolutely not a) constitution, then Eurosceptic businessmen should fund a privately-organised referendum of the general public. There is some precedent for this, in the form of the private referendum on the future of Section 28 organised and funded by the multi-millionaire Brian Souter in 2000. While Souter's referendum was limited to Scotland, it would surely not be impossible, with substantial funding and efficient organisation, to organise a UK-wide poll on the considerably more important question of the EU "treaty".

The practical effectiveness of any private referendum would be a different matter, however. In spite of an overwhelming 87% vote against abolishing Section 28, Souter's referendum failed to prevent the ultimate removal of the clause. I suspect that a private referendum on the constitution would be similarly unsuccessful.

One of the significant problems that Souter's referendum faced, was that anti-Section 28 groups boycotted the poll. As a result of this, supporters of abolition were able to depict the poll as unrepresentative of the public, despite the fact that it attracted a 32% turnout among Scottish voters, a figure approximately equal to the average turnout in local elections.

The same problem would be likely to afflict any private referendum on the EU constitution. It is highly unlikely that pro-constitution forces would actively participate in any such referendum; indeed, like the anti-Section 28ers in Scotland, they would probably seek to reduce its legitimacy by boycotting it. And, it cannot be denied, that a boycott would, to some extent, diminish the poll's legitimacy. After all, a vote organised by anti-constitution activists, and boycotted by supporters of the constitution, could never claim the same legitimacy as an impartially organised referendum in which both sides participated. It would simply not be seen as a fair fight. That principle held true for Souter's referendum, and it would hold true for Lord Young's proposed referendum.

Where such a referendum could prove useful, would be as a display of strength. If several million people voted, and voted overwhelmingly against the constitution, then, even if that vote could not be said to be an exact representation of public opinion, it would nonetheless possess importance, as a representation of the views of a very large number of people. As such, it could be considered equivalent to a protest march: if a protest march attracts hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people, then it can strengthen the position advocated by the marchers, by clearly showing that their views do have substantial support.
The problem here, is that the government must surely already know that, not only are a very large number of people opposed to the constitution, but that the vast majority of people are. After all, it is because they know that they would lose any referendum, and lose heavily, that they will not allow a referendum in the first place. A large anti-constitution vote in a private referendum would do no more than re-emphasise this, and would, in all probability, be ignored.

This is not to say that it would be a waste of time organising a private referendum on this matter. Anything that gave the public an opportunity to demonstrate their opposition to this latest sell-out of our country by its leaders would be a good thing. But we must be realistic in our expectations: the politicians are hardly unused to ignoring the views of the public, and doing it on one more thing is unlikely to cause any of them a sleepless night. No, I think that the most likely way in which Britain will be saved from the constitution is by its rejection by a nation whose government does allow it a referendum.

"Britain is different"

In an interview with the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, made the following statement, regarding the value of public debate on the new EU "treaty":

I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries.

Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

So, Herr Juncker strongly supports public discussion of the "treaty" in all of the EU's 27 member states, bar one.

Why does he feel that the British public should be singled out for inferior treatment? Well, I suppose treating Britain worse than other countries is pretty much par for the course for the EU, but that doesn't really explain Juncker's objection to allowing us to know the truth about this further loss of sovereignty. Rather, it appears that he feels confident that the other 26 EU member states can be bullied or cajoled into accepting the "treaty", even if they know the truth. The British public, however, cannot be. So, what Juncker really feels about public debate on the EU "treaty", is that he's all for it if he thinks that the public can be tricked into supporting his point of view, but against it if the public cannot be tricked. If the British public were allowed a debate and a referendum they would reject the "treaty", and the goal of creating a United States of Europe (something of which Juncker is a devout advocate) would be derailed once again. And in the EU, democracy comes in a poor second when set against the dream of the USE.

Our own government seems to subscribe to Juncker's plan of lying to us in the hope of getting us to accept the "treaty". One of the last of many lies told by Tony Blair during the course of his premiership was the claim that the "treaty" is in Britain's interests, and Gordon Brown looks set to deny the public a referendum on this latest sell-out of our country. Neither of them has had the guts to acknowledge that, as the EU commissioner Margot Wallström has said, the "treaty" is "essentially the same proposal as the old constitution".

Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. We were taken into the EU on the basis of a lie (that all we were doing was entering a common market, not a political union) and we've been lied to at every turn ever since. We have no reason to expect our politicians to behave any more honourably this time.

"The Coryphaeus of Science, the Father of Nations, the Great Genius of Humanity"

The European Union is spending £3.8 billion a year on "propaganda" to win over its sceptical citizens, it is claimed.

As well as publishing a plethora of pamphlets and employing an army of public relations staff, the EU has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on teaching aids, school trips and even cartoons.

According to Lee Rotherham, the author of a new book which examines the EU's spending on its image, such initiatives are an "outrageous and cynical attempt to brainwash the young". The Europa Diary, a gift from the EU to schoolchildren, is one example cited by Mr Rotherham in Hearts & Minds: the Tax-funded PR Campaign to Make us Love Brussels.

The diary has been sent to 1.2 million pupils in more than 9,000 schools across Europe. Its calendar includes pages that describe the European Parliament as "the people's voice" and claims that the EU has "improved the quality of people's everyday lives".

A version of the diary sent to Dutch schools describes the European Parliament as the "most important multi-national organ in the world".

Let's Explore Europe Together, an online teaching aid aimed at nine to 12-year-olds, describes the EU as a "really good plan that had never been tried before".

The European Parliament has also funded a cartoon called Operation Red Dragon, featuring a daring, fictitious MEP, Elisa Correr, who becomes "embroiled in a risky and fascinating adventure while in pursuit of her parliamentary activities".

She dodges assassins, hunts down a general who broke an arms embargo, and still has time to debate copyright law in Brussels. The text admits: "European Parliamentarians do not generally lead such dangerous lives ... nevertheless you can learn about the work of an MEP and other European institutions from the story."

Indeed. After all, filling out an expenses form is hardly a walk in the park. You could get a paper cut!

In Italy, reports Mr Rotherham, children have been confronted by Camillo e l'Euro in Europa, a cartoon that champions the single currency.

Mr Rotherham said: "Much of this is outrageous propaganda cynically trying to brainwash the young into thinking the EU is an essential part of their lives.

"This stuff is relentlessly positive about the EU's work, with only the tiniest, if any, mention of the counter-arguments or any dissenting voices. Brussels realises it is losing people's hearts and minds and so it is spending more and more of our money on marketing material and hordes of press officers to champion its existence."

Europe's Best Successes, a 51-page pamphlet to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the EU, features lines such as "if you are lucky enough to be a citizen of the EU", and "young people have really benefited from the development of a borderless Europe".

Mr Rotherham also details extensive spending on umbrellas, mouse mats, pencils and other items branded with the EU logo - part of a £2.4 billion budget for European Commission "projects". He also reveals big grants to think-tanks and EU-funded trips to the European Parliament.

Using accounts from across the EU's five main institutions - the European Parliament, Council of Ministers, European Court of Justice, the EU Council and the European Court of Auditors - Mr Rotherham calculates that the total spent on "propaganda" last year across all member states was £3.8 billion out of an overall budget of about £84 billion. Britain contributes about £6.3 billion a year to the EU, more than any other member state.

On a personal note, some years ago I remember reading in a local newspaper of a visit by the execrable Keith Vaz to a local school, in his then capacity as Minister for Europe. The school buildings were festooned for the occasion with EU flags, and on his arrival, Vaz distributed chocolate Euros to the children. Recalling that, I was not at all surprised to read of this latest example of state-sponsored brainwashing in our schools.

Because that is what this is: brainwashing. I don't have a problem with children learning about the EU - indeed, I believe that it is positively essential that they do - but information with which they are provided must be fair and balanced, which is patently not the case at the moment. As I have documented here before (in respect of the homosexual penguins, for example), this kind of state-sponsored left-wing indoctrination is increasingly the norm in our schools. Rather than being taught to think critically, or being given the opportunity to hear and evaluate both sides of an argument, we increasingly see children being presented with only one-side of a hotly-contested issue, as if that side represented the absolute and undisputed truth. Commonly, this side and its advocates are idealised, while those who on the other side are vilified, and presented as almost pantomimic villains.

The particularly worrying thing about such propaganda is that it might very well work. We've all heard the phrase "get 'em while they're young". Well, that is exactly what the EU (and the global warming obsessives, and the promoters of "Black History Month", and all the other elements who seem unable or unwilling to distinguish education from indoctrination) are doing. There is a good chance that if they can get these children in their formative years, and tell them over and over and over again that the EU is a good, a marvellous, a wondrous, thing, that enriches our lives as much as mass immigration (a statement that is actually true), then by the time those children are adults they, or at least a large number of them, will accept it as an unchallengeable article of faith.