New Year wishes

UKIP at London Assembly wishes all the blog's readers and supporters a very happy euro-free 2005 (except when you want to go to all those silly countries to have some nice food and bring back nice wine and cheap cigarettes).

We hope next year there will be many more of you and we promise to bring you many more stories, news items, interesting gossip and, even, the odd bit of analysis.

May the force be with us all.

Those ID cards again

It is somehow assumed that the days between Christmas and the New Year, which have become an assumed holiday in this country, should be filled with joy and revelry, or, alternatively, peaceful contemplation of the past year and happy forecasts for the next one. Come to think of it, does anyone believe this?

Even without the horrific news from South-East Asia and the undoubted recriminations and misdirected funds that is the news to come, this is not the time to feel anything but depressed. I have always found it very sad that a country that has been the by-word of liberty in the past, a people who have proudly proclaimed the joys of individual liberty, should now equally proudly proclaim that Britain is the place where every single rule, however stupid and harmful, is obeyed implicitly. Whether that is true is irrelevant. The problem is that blind obedience has taken the place of freedom as a matter for self-congratulations.

That sad little threnody brings us to the whole subject of internal passports (a.k.a. ID cards). As it happens, the Wall Street Journal Europe on Tuesday of this week carried a long article about the problem of terrorism in Europe. Its main theme was not quite as new as the two authors, David Crawford and Keith Johnson thought: there is a serious problem in all the western European countries with a few people who have lived in them for two or three generations, who were born and brought up in them, and who should, therefore, feel their immediate loyalty to those countries, actually deciding to join various terrorist organizations.

We knew this when young Britons were found fighting with the Taleban in Afghanistan or among homicide bombers in the Palestine. The Dutch found this out when a young man of Moroccan descent, one who had never lived in Morocco, brutally murdered Theo van Gogh, the film director. The Spanish are learning to live with the fact (though they are still finding it hard to accept that they threw away an election) that the Madrid bombs were placed there by inhabitants of Spain who had formed themselves into terrorist groups and had links with Al-Quaeda before 9/11. Other terrorist groups, also mostly made up of second and third generation inhabitants of Spain have been arrested.

There are groups in France, in Belgium, in the Netherlands. In other words, in countries that already have ID cards. And, furthermore, all these young men would have had them. The idea that somehow, the introduction of ID cards in Britain would be an adequate substitute for intelligence work is being blown apart (if I may use what can sound as an unfortunate phrase in the circumstances) by the unravelling of the existing groups.

While we are on the subject, let us remember some of the other unnecessary measures being put into place by the EU: the operational Europol force, whose officers will be immune from ordinary rules and prosecutions and whose offices will have diplomatic protection; the single police college CEPOL, also subject to the same rules and privileges; Eurojust and probably a European Public Prosecutor, which will introduce different, Continental systems of judicial behaviour to Britain. There are other proposals, of which we shall write on this blog, all of them having been put into British law through secondary legislation, that is Statutory Instruments, without any debate or discussion.

In the end, two things will defeat terrorism and neither of them requires the sort of destruction of civil liberties that all these new structures propose: good old-fashioned intelligence, which can be exchanged between police forces through bilateral links or Interpol; and the attitude, which states firmly that yes, indeed, we are fighting a war against terrorism. But not against ordinary law-abiding citizens, whose lives will be made extremely difficult by internal passports. No terrorist act will be stopped by them.

Christmas service

Frantic last minute Christmas preparations and the eventual celebrations mean that this service will be interrupted until Boxing Day. But do not despair, UKIP London Assembly blog will be back, covering politial issues, the fights in the Great Glass Egg, pronouncements by Hizonner the Mayor and the goings on within the group itself (the last three in the new year, when the Great Glass Egg will once again resound to the cut and thrust of ... errm ... discussions about how to divvy up the budget.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all our readers.

Luxembourg throws its weight around

Hands up those who knew that the next EU Presidency is Luxembourg’s. Well, it is and its Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, is beginning to throw his weight around. And why should UKIP at the London Assembly be interested in it, with all the fights it is waging inside the Great Glass Egg? Well, as I have explained before, occasionally we do put our noses outside the ecologically sensitively air-conditioned (i.e. it doesn’t work) office. It is time to look at that rather peculiar institution of the European Union, its rotating presidency. (Incidentally, the idea of a rotating member state presidency was invented in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito. And what a success that turned out to be.)

The next six months should see an agreement on the 2007 – 2013 EU budget (during which period, incidentally, there will be national elections, European elections and a new Commission – none of that will have an effect on the budget, which, once agreed, rolls on).

Will it be agreed, though? And on what terms? As we know, the supposedly free-marketeer Commission President Barroso has called several times on the EU donor countries to raise their contribution to the EU budget, in order to enable the creation of new EU projects. Not one’s usual definition of a free-marketeer or liberal economic thinker, but let that pass.

Now we have M Juncker joining the chorus. As all incoming presidential leaders, he has made a statement about the next six months:

"If we don't arrive at an accord on the outlines by June 2005, it will be impossible to enact the programmes which should be available on January 1,2007."

That sounds a little alarmist, but he needs to be in order to whip the members into submission. The trouble is that it is not just an agreement he wants but an agreement on the terms he is outlining. These are not very popular with the biggest contributors, Austria, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. They insist that their contribution should be 1 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI). The Commission and the incoming Presidency would like to raise the contribution to 1.14 per cent, in order, as AFP says:

“…to enact legislation for ambitious infrastructure projects and subsidies for the bloc's newest and relatively poorer members foreseen by the EU”.

The words cloth and coat and cutting come to mind. The eurozone countries are in economic trouble, with the two biggest, France and Germany, in greater trouble than the others. They need to concentrate on those long delayed and almost impossible reforms that will drag them out of the rut. Continuing economic weakness with an over-strong currency spells disaster.

While we are on the subject, whatever happened to the Lisbon process? It was meant to turn the European economy, whatever that might be, into the most efficient, knowledge-driven one by 2010. We are almost half-way there and nothing much has happened apart from an ever thicker mesh of regulations being spun by the giant spider in Brussels and, for entertainment, a large selection of scorecards that are meant to show entrepreneurial spirit.

In the circumstances, the idea of handing over more money to the EU for various projects, whose usefulness is doubtful and whose accountability is non-existent, tends to be greeted with scepticism by the donor countries.

M Juncker is not despondent. He has six months to find a compromise between the position of the donor countries (“Can’t pay, won’t pay”) and that of the Commission and Presidency (“The Don has a small proposition to make.”). Of course, if he does not succeed, he will be able to hand to mess on to his successor, Tony Blair. And just in case anyone thought his task was too simple, M Juncker has also announced that he intends to reform the Growth and Stability Pact. It is not stupid, he insists, non, non, non. But it could be made more intelligent.

We await the actual Luxembourg Presidency with some interest.

And the latest news inside the Great Glass Egg is that the Member Liaison Manager (a.k.a. Head of Secret Police) has returned from his bibulous lunch sans gossip, sans football, sans Christmas lights. No carols are being sung either. But yesterday there was a multicultural Nativity Play on the lowest level of the Egg, unnoticed by UKIP members as they were carousing upstairs.

Christmas truce in the trenches

Some of our readers may recall a recent report about an unseemly war between the Conservative and the UKIP groups in the Great Glass Egg, separated as they are by a mere glass partition.

We are delighted to report that, in keeping with historic tradition, a Christmas truce has broken out in the trenches. The Conservative group took down their notice about leaving civilization and, in return, UKIP took down the two notices about entering a Brian Coleman-free zone and offering political asylum.

We think that this amazing display of good will is due entirely to the well-known diplomatic skills of the UKIP Member Liaison Manager (a.k.a. Head of Secret Police). As of now there has been no carol singing or coloured lights strung along the trenches but we await the outcome of what we suspect will be a fairly bibulous lunch attended by all the Member Liaison Managers (MLMs) and NCOs from the Secretariat.

There was a suggestion of a football game in no man’s land but nothing came of that, as the Conservatives demanded that, under the proportionality rules that they follow in discussion of the Assembly budget, they should have four and a half times as many players in their team.

Normal relations will, almost certainly, resume in the new year.

A troublesome bunch, these UKIP people

Generally speaking they are known to be troublesome because of their awkward habit of telling the truth (mostly) and pointing out inconsistencies in other people’s stance. This tends to infuriate elected members of the Assembly, who are also rather anxious to show that they are incredibly important, even though it is hard to point to any specific achievement on their part.

The latest saga started a week or so ago when a round-robin e-mail was sent from the Assembly Secretariat, calling upon all members and staff of the Assembly to support the Chairman and Deputy Chairman in their commemoration of the Government ordained Holocaust Memorial Day.

At this stage, we shall let the London Evening Standard take up the story. The following piece appeared in Londoner’s Diary, in the earlier editions of the paper:

Stand off on ceremony

War has broken out in City Hall after plans were announced for a Holocaust Memorial ceremony in January. Members of the London Assembly, the 25-strong body charged with scrutinising the Mayor's policies, whipped themselves into a tizzy after UKIP researcher Dr Helen Szamuely dared to reply to the circular email.
"May I suggest that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the London Assembly also arrange for a public ceremony at some later date for a memorial to all the victims of
Communist systems?" she asked.
An extraordinarily vituperative exchange ensued with fellow Assembly Members. "I consider your reply totally inappropriate and I will raise the matter of your email with the chief executive," raged Brian Coleman, leader of the Assembly's Tories. Len Duvall, leader of the Labour members, accused Szamuely of being a holocaust denier. Bizarrely, it was left to UKIP Assembly leader Damian Hockney to provide a voice of reason. "If we cannot have a sensible debate can I suggest that we all stop now?"
At least we can rest assured they're justifying City Hall's £60 million annual running costs.

We shall pass over the suggestion that for the Dear Leader to provide a voice of reason is somehow bizarre.

It is interesting to speculate how the Evening Standard journalists first got hold of the story, which had unfolded in a series of internal e-mails. It had caused a great deal of agitations in the Great Glass Egg, but who passed it on to the outside world? Could it have been some politician, hoping to smear UKIP as holocaust deniers? Surely not. Would they do such a thing? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please.

However, the journos on Londoner’s Diary sensed a good story and asked for the UKIP side of it. Having been sent the entire feverish exchange of memos, they decided that the story was, indeed, a good one, but not, perhaps, in the way their original informant had meant it.

Another challenge to the Conservative leader

UKIP opposes identity cards (otherwise known as internal passports) as a matter of principle. They are not only useless and expensive but a serious and unwarranted breach of individual liberty; they change the relationship between the citizen and the state: instead of the state being at the disposal of its citizens, they become its servants.

At the London Assembly we have already made the point that our objections could be overcome if it were proved incontrovertibly that ID cards are essential, useful and indispensable in the fight against terror. However, we know that Britain has been fighting internal terrorists reasonably successfully for 30 years without the benefit or otherwise of internal passports.

As we have mentioned before, evidence given by a Metropolitan Police officer to the MPA stated clearly that ID cards were of no real use at all.

Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative Party, today published an article in which he explained why he was going to vote for ID cards, despite many misgivings and strongly expressed opposition in his own party. He mentioned airily that he had been told by police and security chiefs that these documents “can and will help” the fight against terrorism. In a press release this afternoon, UKIP at the London Assembly challenged Mr Howard to produce his evidence. As a lawyer, he ought to know that evidence is worthless, unless it is made clear.

Text of press release:

UKIP Challenges Howard on ID cards


The UK Independence Party at the London Assembly today challenged Michael Howard to produce the evidence from police and security chiefs who, he alleges, have told him that ID cards "can and will" help their efforts to protect people against
terrorist acts.

This contradicts the Metropolitan Police statement made to the London Assembly on 8th December. When asked by UKIP London Assembly Leader Damian Hockney: "Is there any evidence that compulsory identity cards would help protect London from a terrorist attack?" the Metropolitan Police representative produced no such evidence.

Damian Hockney said: "Extensive research by UKIP staff has not uncovered any data from anywhere in the world that supports Mr Howard's contention. If Mr Howard has any evidence from police and security chiefs, now must be the time to reveal it. Otherwise his assertion is worthless.

"UKIP is opposed to the introduction of compulsory ID cards as a matter of principle. If Mr Howard cannot produce his evidence he must retract and apologise for misleading the public."
-ends-

An interesting outside view of the European Constitution

On the whole UKIP at the London Assembly is concerned, as our readers know, with events and developments in that august body. Occasionally, however, we put our noses outside the Great Glass Egg and look at what is going on in the world.

What, of course, is going on, apart from the gradual disappearance of human life in favour of Christmas preparations, is the European Constitution. With the probable general election in May of next year, Britain’s Presidency of the European Union from July 1 to December 31, 2005, the likely date, as we have already discussed it, for a referendum is March 2006.

The discussions are only just gearing up (or will be, as soon as the great Christmas Sleep is over) and it is interesting to see what is being said about that document in other parts of the world. Let us look at a recent American analysis.

The American commentator in this case is, in fact, a French citizen who has lived in the United States for thirty-three years. So, his views can be seen as well-meaning American. Jean-Loup Archawski is a retired businessman and a member of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s (FPRI) Study Group on America and the West.

He has produced an interesting though somewhat bemused analysis of the European Constitution, clearly attempting to explain the inexplicable. Mr Archawski can be described as both an insider – presumably his links with France are closer than the average American political analyst’s – and an outside commentator. After all, he does not live there. Also, he knows that his audience, that small part of the American public that is interested in European politics, is unlikely to find its way through the maze of it.

He makes the usual point that this is not a constitution as has been understood until now. A constitution ought to be a brief and precise definition of the various parts of the state, their relationship with each other and the relationship between the state and the individual. The European Constitution is not brief, seriously imprecise and goes far beyond the usual scope of such a document.

“The form of suggested governance is neither a confederation nor a federation. The document reads more like the by-laws of a very large corporation or a bureaucratic behemoth rather than like a constitution organizing the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.”

That is, in many ways, the point at issue. This is a behemoth, a leviathan; one that is not and cannot be, given its size and propensity to increase endlessly, a democratic, accountable, truly constitutional political system. Even in business terms this is out of date. Mergers do happen, of course, and the Commission is on the look-out for them, not wishing to see monopolies anywhere but at the heart of the project. But many seriously overgrown giant companies have found that they had to demerge to restore some kind of efficiency.

The paper comes to the conclusion that the Constitution is so convoluted and full of internal contradictions because of the nature of the negotiations that produced it. Mr Archawski echoes the “many people” (who are they, one wonders) who think that this Constitution has no chance at all of being ratified in the 25 states. Therefore, the most likely scenario, in his opinion, and the most attractive one is the reappearance of the document in a slimmed-down, clarified version. Something like the American Constitution, one assumes.

I think this is another one of those famous Tales of Porcine Aviation. It is extraordinary that, having grasped the basic problem about the EU, Mr Archawski can actually move on to that kind of an uninformed optimism.

The structure of the European Constitution, its size, detailed instructions and necessary vagueness about details is essential to the whole construct. Just as the EEC was never intended to be a free market and, thus, there is no point in suggesting we move back to it, so the European Union is not intended to be a carefully balanced federal structure with well defined government powers.

Its intention has always been to have as few definitions as possible – a very sensible course of action if you want to take over powers without anyone much noticing what you are doing. Its plan for expansion is ill-defined, partly because of an inability to put together a common foreign policy, there not being any common interests. Its structure is ill-defined, to allow more scope for future integration. And the last thing the authors of that wretched document wanted was an understanding either on the part of the member states or of individual citizens what their precise role and rights are.

If, for some reason, this Constitution is not adopted, the chances are there will be another committee that will tinker with a few details. The next document will not be any simpler or, if experience is anything to go by, shorter. Au contraire.

In the end, we have to come back to the most crucial question of all, one that Mr Achawski does not ask but UKIP at the London Assembly will most certainly do: what is the point of all this.

UKIP plays Marley to the Mayor's Scrooge

We have already noted a certain lack of festivity around Oxford Street, which we put down entirely to Hizonner’s Olympic bid. Now one of our boys in the Assembly (one of the elected ones, who are superior to mere mortals) raised the subject of a similar Scrooge-like atmosphere around the Great Glass Egg. (Not that Hizonner would approve of Scrooge, who believed in private enterprise and as little redistribution of wealth as possible. Even in his reformed state he appeared to think that help should be given through private charity rather than municipal hand-outs.)

Nevertheless, Christmas cheer has arrived at the Great Glass Egg. There is a large Christmas tree in the lobby. There has been a call for presents to a children’s charity – almost like Scrooge in his reformed state, though he, I seem to remember took the turkey round himself, thus personalizing the gift.

I suppose Dickens might have approved the rather nannyish instruction of not sending any “violent toys” to the charities. Clearly, whoever came up with that knows very little about children. The little darlings do not need toys to have violent games. They can make a dolls’ tea party look like the Battle of Waterloo.

And as Tiny Tim said: “God bless us everyone!”

Swedes still oppose the euro (and are not too happy about the rest of it)

Awkward customers the Swedes and have been so since the days of the great king Gustavus Adolphus. Having voted against the euro in a referendum in September 2003, they still maintain that they do not want to abandon the krone. And, indeed, why should they? After all, none of the terrible things that they have been threatened with, have materialized.

According to a survey conducted by Statistics Sweden, 49 per cent will vote no to the country joining the euro, were it conducted the day after the question was asked, 37 per cent would vote yes, and 14 per cent were undecided.

Euro-enthusiasts are trying to console themselves with the thought that the proportion of those saying no has gone down from the last survey, conducted in May. Then 51 per cent said no. On the other hand, the proportion of yes voters has gone down, as well, by one per cent. The undecided have gone up from 11 per cent. All of which reflects merely the fact that the Swedes know that there is no referendum coming on the euro and, therefore, they can afford the luxury of “not knowing” or not bothering to reply properly. (Even the civic-minded Scandinavians must get fed up with these endless polls and questionnaires.)

The Swedish government has decided not to have a referendum on the constitution. They know what they are doing. The same poll found that 43.5 percent had a positive view of the EU, compared to 33.6 percent who had a negative view and 22.8 percent who were undecided, before the details of the constitution were even known. A referendum after a dedicated campaign could turn out to be very unsatisfactory from the government’s point of view.

Tories grapple with the idea of principle

The Conservative Party has come up with a wizard idea over internal passports, a.k.a. ID cards: they will support the idea in principle but pick holes in the legislation if they can. Principle? Principle? Wot dat as far as the Tories are concerned?

Do they believe in individual liberty or not? Answers on the back of postage stamps, please.

Of course, one can argue that in wartime or during any sort of a major emergency individual liberty has to be curtailed for the common good, if that common good can be discerned. As we have pointed out in a previous posting, the police have no particular notion of whether ID cards will be useful to prevent terrorist attacks or deal with the inevitably chaotic aftermath.

Last week Sir John Stevens announced that a Madrid-type attack on London had been stopped. Nobody pointed out the obvious: the potential attack was stopped as numerous IRA attacks had been stopped in the past, without ID cards. Spain, on the other hand, does have them. The Madrid attacks were not stopped and neither were the more recent ETA ones.

One must remember that it was the present leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, who, in his days as Home Secretary, suggested that ID cards were necessary to prevent social security fraud. Now they appear to be necessary to deal with crime and terrorism. In fact, internal passports are the solution looking for a problem. So far there has not been a problem they could solve.

It seems that some members of the Shadow Cabinet have had “severe misgivings”, though, as ever, not severe enough to think of resignation, despite this being a very serious matter. Then again, am I being old-fashioned? Perhaps, matters of individual liberty no longer constitute serious political issues.

A spokesperson for Conservative Central Office said:

“During the course of the Bill, the Conservatives will continue to hold ministers to account over our five tests: the exact purpose of the scheme,whether it will meet those objectives, whether this Home Office is capable of delivering them, the cost-effectiveness of the scheme, and whether proper protection can be provided for privacy.”

Well yes, one could ask all of those questions and, even without asking them, most of us know the answers? Why, therefore, are the Tories not opposing this useless, expensive and authoritarian scheme? Errm, apparently, they are afraid of being seen as weak on law and order.

Well, we in UKIP at the London Assembly are not afraid of saying it: internal passports are a weapon of an authoritarian government against law-abiding citizens. They do not help in the fight against terrorism (have they helped in Russia?); they do not help in the fight against crime; they do not help in the fight against social security fraud. Why have them?

These people do not give up

We have news of certain developments from Gerard Batten UKIP’s London MEP. Mr Batten sits on the Defence and Security Committee in the European Parliament. Although one would think this was an important topic, the committee sits once every two or three months. But then, presumably, there is not a great deal they can do apart from jaw-jaw. War-war, if it happens, will do so quite separately.

At the last meeting of the European Parliament Defence and Security Committee, the discussion was about an EU Defence White Paper, presented by an “independent task force”, that is the European Union Institute for Security Studies, based in Paris. So independent is this body that its existence was brought forth by a Council Joint Action and it “has the status of an autonomous agency that comes under the EU’s second ‘pillar’ – the Common Foreign and Security Policy”.

The Institute is very proud of the fact that it defends no particular national interest:

“Its aim is to help create a common European security culture, to enrich the strategic debate, and systematically to promote the interests of the Union.”

Those of us who would like to see a genuine debate on the future security of Europe and the West would say that this “independent” and “scholarly” institute starts with a certain view and looks for academic and political arguments to promote it, all using money from the European Commission.

The Committee that produced the White Paper comprised all sorts of experts on European security, none of which were in doubt on what the future should hold. But, just to prove its independence, the body was chaired by Nicole Gnesotto, Director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies (ISS-EU), who also presented the White Paper to the Committee. Further discussion was led by the Rapporteur, Jean-Yves Haine, who happens to be one of the Senior Research Fellows of the Institute.

According to Mr Batten, who sits on the Committee and, unlike many MEPs, seems to take his job seriously enough to listen to what is being said and to take notes, Mme Gnesotto announced that EU member states no longer had any political or ideological opposition to the ideas expressed in the White Paper (though she did not specify who had actually seen or discussed the document), only operational ones. These, she admitted were serious enough, to make putting the ideas in it into practice, rather difficult.

M Haine outlined five scenarios for possible EU military action, all of which seem to go beyond the old ill-defined Petersberg tasks:

1. Large scale peace support operations, the weakness here was the current inadequate troop levels in the EU.

2. High intensity crisis management, this requires rapid political decision making and a rapid deployment capability.

3. Traditional regional wars, e.g. the Gulf. The issues here were about armaments, deployment, locations of HQs and working with other, e.g. the USA.

4. Pre-emptive strikes, e.g. for countering Weapons of Mass Destruction. These operations require Special Forces and there was a problem with numbers.

5. Homeland defence (civil protection rather than military operations.

Interestingly enough, all five are the very actions and proposals that, when voiced by the United States, evoke shrieks of horror. Furthermore, none of them seem to have any direct relation to straightforward defence and security.

Even more interestingly, nothing has been said of this White Paper in the British media or in the British Parliament. Is there a reason for that? As the late lamented Bernard Levin used to say: I only ask because I want to know.

While the cat's away ...

Dear Leader is visiting his family for the Christmas festivities, which, in his case start rather early. His people have decided to celebrate by opening a bottle of Kir and consuming various snacks.

It seems that there is some kind of psycho-hypnotic link between the UKIP office in the Glass Egg and the Dear Leader's other office. No sooner had the festivities begun but phone calls and e-mails poured in from the Dear Leader.

Two members of the team had to sit down and start putting together ideas for future policies. Luckily they had their glasses of bubbly to hand.

Referendum Bill may be postponed

Business managers of both Houses of Parliament are worried that they will not have time to push through the EU Constitution Referendum Bill before the next election, still most likely to be in May.

They are anxious that the Conservatives (and, even more importantly, members of the House of Lords) will produce what they wryly call “a Maastricht scenario” that will drag out and take time away from other rather controversial measures such as the introduction of internal passports a.k.a. ID cards or the setting up of a Serious Organized Crime Police Force (dubbed the British FBI by those witty wags in the newspapers).

What the business managers or the usual channels, as they are sometimes described, do not mention is another fear, but one can almost hear it in their voices. The Maastricht debates in both Houses (and let us remember that with all his faults John Major did not guillotine what was indisputably a constitutional Bill) became a wasting disease. As the endless debates dragged on, the Conservative government bled slowly to death. This is not likely to happen to a government with a majority of the size this one has, but a wasting disease is not wanted just before a general election.

The likelihood is, therefore, that the Referendum Bill will be introduced immediately after the election, though it may well be published in January when we are also going to find out what the question will be and whether it will ask about the treaty or the constitution itself.

Lucy Powell of Britain in Europe is still insisting that there will be no messing about with the question. It will be simple and straightforward, just as the Prime Minister’s office is promising us.

“Opponents try and claim the public will be duped by the Government but by the time people go into the polling stations there will have been, hopefully, clear and well-run campaigns on the 'yes’ and ‘no’ sides. People will not make up their minds one way or another on the wording of the question.”

Those dastardly opponents.

The Vote – No campaign, capable of making a statement since this is really rather straightforward, is fussing over the difference between “a treaty to establish a European Constitution” or “European Constitution” tout court. Both would be technically correct.

It remains unclear when the actual Bill to amend the European Communities Act, that is to add the new treaty to British legislation (subject, for once, to a referendum vote) will be debated. Will that, too, be left till after the election? That could cause problems, as there will not be a great deal of time between that and the British Presidency of the EU. Surely, Tony Blair will not want a “Maastricht scenario” while he is wining and dining his colleagues from the other member states.

What is scrutiny about?

The London Assembly exists to hold the Mayor of London to account and to scrutinize his doings. Well, so they say. It is, on the whole, rather difficult to scrutinize what Hizonner is up to as GLA has no mechanism whereby that can be done.

Once a month the Mayor comes to the Assembly, gives a report and answers a few questions. The time allocated to each group’s questions is strictly proportional and includes the replies. Should Hizonner wish to extend his reply to, say, question 1 by UKIP to the point where they have no time to ask question 2, well, he can do so.

Questions that are not asked because of lack of time get a written response, which is fine and dandy, except that you cannot put follow-up questions, particularly as the transcripts of the monthly MQT (Mayor’s Question Time) sessions are not written up for weeks afterwards, apparently, after a lot of toing and froing between the Assembly and the Mayor’s office. Parliament can produce Hansard transcripts of each day’s events, including that of committees, the following morning both for the website and as a hard copy. What is the problem with the London Assembly?

There are no other accepted mechanisms for questioning and finding out. UKIP at the London Assembly has been trying to find out details of the Mayor’s propaganda sheet The Londoner and have failed. Repeated requests for information about cost, distribution, expenses and so on, that ought to be in the public domain have been ignored. Nor have we been any luckier with the European Social Forum, an expensive and pointless extravaganza for various British and European NGOs and right-on political groupings that seems to have been paid for …. yes, you’ve guessed it, the long-suffering London taxpayer.

There are, of course, the committees. True to its stature as a virtual democratic body, rather like the European Parliament, the London Assembly transacts what business it does have in committees not in the chamber.

Ah yes, the committees. Well, there is the Budget Committee, which will meet on December 16 to have a preliminary discussion of a budget of almost £3 billion. This is not chicken feed and it is all the taxpayer’s money. Unfortunately, the long and complicated document that will be discussed does not get to the members till December 14, allowing 48 hours for the reading and inward digesting.

After the committee has had a preliminary discussion, it will go away, to have the various Christmas and New Year festivities and reassemble in January for another meeting on the budget, which will subsequently go to one of the monthly, two and a half hour long plenary sessions.

There is a snag in all this. (No, really?) The Assembly cannot, either at the committee stage or in the plenary, make any changes to the budget. The Budget Committee can cut back the money, if it thinks the whole shebang is becoming too expensive but cannot decide where the cuts should happen. Thus, UKIP can protest all it likes about the couple of million that goes into the financing of The Londoner or the £600,000 plus that goes to Hizonner’s outpost in Brussels, London House, but it cannot even put down a motion to reform these practices. It can suggest cut-backs of, let us say, £2 million in the budget but cannot go beyond that and specify where the cut-backs should happen. Neither can any of the other parties, or the Budget Committee or the London Assembly in plenary session.

That’s scrutiny for you.

It's official: the police do not know what ID cards are for

During this morning’s Plenary Session of the London Assembly (attended by both our members – so no jibes please about people taking the money and not doing any work), the discussion was about plans for the aftermath of a major terrorist attack on London.

Since, apparently, none of the witnesses questioned will be in charge of any aspect of those plans, it seemed rather a waste of time but, one presumes that people who really are working on contingency plans are not going to be questioned about them half-way through their labours by not very knowledgeable politicos, eager to score points with the media.

Nevertheless, even though we say so ourselves, the most interesting question was asked by Damian Hockney, leader of the UKIP group in the Assembly. In fact, that was the one question the business managers for the plenary session were worried about as it might have political implications. Actually, they seem rather worried about Mr Hockney’s activities. UKIP is beginning to be known as the group that is likely to ask difficult to answer questions. Some might argue that this is precisely what members of an elected assembly are for, but it seems that the idea is rather novel and radical in the Glass Egg.

Mr Hockney asked Commander Mick Messinger of the Metropolitan Police (or MPS, as they like to be called in this age of cuddly abbreviations) whether, in his opinion, internal passports, a.k.a. ID cards were of any use in the prevention of terrorist attacks.

Commander Messinger did not seem to think that they would be of any real use, though he did think that there were certain benefits to these cards from the policing point of view. There were, also, certain disbenefits, he opined. He did not give any details of either.

It seems that these cards would be quite useful for identifying people (duh!), particularly those who had collapsed in the streets. As prior to a terrorist attack the number of people who collapse in the streets is not very large and are unlikely to be terrorists, this seems to be a very expensive way of dealing with a problem for which there are already ample provisions in the ambulance service.

One cannot help feeling that this is seriously unimaginative. After all, if we are talking about vulnerable people for whom ID cards (as our internal passports will be known) might be useful, what about those who had forgotten their keys? Can they use their cards to break into their homes? Not, presumably, if they have mortice or Banham locks. Could particularly absent-minded people use their ID cards to identify themselves to themselves? Will they remember to carry them? Perhaps, like evacuated children, they should have those cards tied to their coats.

Cars. Could they be used to open cars with keys locked inside? On present record the police would not notice anybody trying to break into a car using unauthorized tools, such as an ID card.

The one thing they cannot be used for is preventing any major or, even, minor terrorist attacks. Or so the police seems to think.

Picnic in the Chamber

Not teddy bears exactly but the Dear Leader, as he still likes to be called, despite the disappearance of all of Kim-il Jong’s portraits in North Korea, and assorted British and German journalists.

It was St Nicholas’ Day and Miss Antoine, the group’s invaluable provender provider, has furnished mince pies and slices of stollen cake to keep everybody happy. Alas, the committee room the meeting was supposed to take place had not been cleaned or cleared after the previous meeting and the whole group had to move.

Where should they move to but the Assembly Chamber? Mindful of the regulations that say no eating or drinking on the seats, the group of journalists plus Dear Leader, decided to picnic at the centre.

As the discussion proceeded with the Dear Leader (Damian Hockney, since you ask) trying to persuade the German journalists that once Britain leaves the EU, Germany should follow and the old traditional alliance between those two countries should be revived (think Seven Years’ War and Napoleonic Wars), they realized that they were observed. The chamber is surrounded by glass and outside those walls a formal reception was going on.

Some criticism was expressed first by the security guards then by the head of catering at the London Assembly, who said that she had not had the heart to come and interfere with what looked like an extremely pleasant and comfortable picnic

Umbrella organization changes its name

Ever since 1993 UKIP has belonged to an umbrella organization, the Anti-Maastricht Alliance, or AMA (which in turn is associated with various European umbrella organizations). The name is a tad out of date but it has been kept for fear of something worse coming our way.

I am glad to report that at a committee meeting yesterday the representatives of the various constituent organizations voted to change it to Alliance Against the European Constitution. It took us seven years to dither and twenty-five minutes to decide. I call that progress. Still, we can go forward into battle under a more or less recognizable banner.

Well, no, they still don't really know what they are talking about

Occasionally UKIP at the London Assembly has to venture out into the big bad world and survey the many problems therein.

I have spent part of yesterday evening listening to Alex Hickman, Chief Executive of the Vote-No campaign (before he had to rush off in order to be present at the talk given by Marta Andreasen on how to reform the EU by making its accountancy system more transparent). Sadly, I have to report that neither he nor, apparently, the Vote-No campaign have a real understanding of the magnitude of the task or what the issues are.

Mr Hickman, who ran Business for Sterling while Gordon Brown was winning the fight for them, explained that the campaign has, in a way, gone back to its roots and is concentrating on business people and business organization. It is a little odd to think that business opinion will be of any value in the constitution referendum. We are not talking about the currency here or interest rates but about a whole raft of issues. As one of those will be the environment, having businesses line up on the no side might actually be quite useful for the yes camapaign.

It is the contention of the Vote-No campaign that it would be counterproductive to discuss the wider issues and all efforts should be concentrated on the constitution and on getting the no vote out. A perfectly reasonable argument, except for one thing – the constitution is about wider issues and these will come up in the discussion.

It seems that, although the famous or infamous “Europe Yes – Constitution No” cinema advert has gone out, no decision has been taken on what other slogans or messages might be put out. It will not be Europe Yes, he assured us, but EU reform yes. Not a catchy slogan and one that is calculated to introduce yet more confusion in the minds of the undecided at whom the entire campaign is aimed. After all the yes side will be saying that their shining new constitution is absolutely essential in order to reform the EU. Have we not already heard mutterings about people rejecting the reform constitution?

What worries the Vote – No campaign is that the government will use scare tactics. Actually, they are lining up positive arguments as well and the eurosceptic side ignores those at its peril. The government, said Mr Hickman, will tell people that voting no means being out of the EU. We must counteract that by never mentioning anything outside the constitution at all.

While some people may agree with that, many of us have seen the knots that the “I am for the EU/single market/previous treaties but against the euro/constitution” brigade ties itself into. Much easier to say well, yes, perhaps this will mean a completely different relationship with other countries in Europe and the world. Anything wrong with that? Like so many politicos, Mr Hickman and his colleagues underestimate people’s ability to understand straightforward ideas and see through humbug. For that is what they are producing: humbug.

Sadly, there is far too much emphasis on who will be taking part: businessmen, celebrities, politicians and far too little on what this is all about, that is Britain’s future. (Incidentally, I was rather surprised to hear that Mr Hickman considered Bob Geldorf’s involvement a huge success. Who on earth pays attention to that clapped out rock dancer and ridiculous aid groupie? Not the young, who think he is a wrinklie; not the middle aged, who think he is preposterous; not the old who have probably not heard of him.)

So what will be the Vote – No campaign talking about when it does go out beyond the London cinemas? Ahem, it seems that they have not decided yet. There will be focus groups and there will be opinion polls. They will talk about power going to Brussels and how much more the EU will cost after the constitution. What will they say when people talk of all the power that has already gone to Brussels and the cost without the constitution? Not disclosed. And, of course, they will talk about the EU taking over matters of criminal justice and asylum. Unfortunately, most of this is going through, constitution or no constitution with Tampere II being adopted.

Curiously enough, it has not occurred to those “bright” boys that virtually announcing yourself to be the No campaign does not make it so. They are merely doing their best to split the eurosceptic movement. They may not succeed.

Breakfast at BMAC - high jinks at City Hall

Our Dear Leader was, as usual, rushing to get to one of his committees onTuesday, and PA Miss Antoine absolutely insisted he did not forgo his breakfast. So down trotted Damian to this televised committee, tray in hand with coffee percolator, croissants, assorted pastries, milk jug and sugar in spoon.

Gales of laughter as he staggered into Committee Room 1 under the load, and apologised saying plaintively: "I had to bring this, as Miss A insisted I must eat something".

Then he achieved the usual starting point for ten to any meeting by voting for something opposed by the Tories (these days a must). After that things went as normal: the ebullient and forthright Tory chair of the committee Brian Coleman shouted "Do you know what you're doing Damian?", provoking abarracking from all others.

Our Dear Leader smiled benevolently and munched away at his pain aubchocolat, thus proving that he does not oppose all things French. By the end of the meeting, fully stuffed with cakes and pastries and, therefore, in a friendly mood, he decided upon an alliance with the Tories for a final end flourish - a vote to ask the Mayor to cancel the Londoner propaganda sheet, thus annoying everyone else in the room!

Sounds like UKIP at the London Assembly is getting the balance right...

Could this happen in Britain?

There have been many changes in President Bush’s cabinet, few particularly surprising. It will be the most diverse cabinet so far, with the first black female Secretary of State and at least two Hispanic members in high positions, one the son of Cuban refugees. The latest announcement is the appointment of former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik to head the U.S. homeland security department.

Could this happen here? Could a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police be put in charge of homeland security? Well, there is the problem that we do not have true separation of powers and, thus, our ministers have to be members of Parliament, a system that has taken its toll on both the legislative and executive wing of government.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Blair is given to making extra-curricular appointments of various “tsars” that have uniformly failed to deal with the problems they were assigned. Incidentally, why a “tsar”? Its autocratic connotations have never made the word popular in this country and, furthermore, a large number of them came to a no-good end. The last tsar was massacred with his entire family. All in all, not an auspicious title.

Still, there is no intrinsic reason why a former Commissioner should not become “security tsar”, perhaps to tell the sceptical populace that inernal passports, a.k.a. ID cards are terribly useful and not at all destructive of individual freedom.

There is, of course, another problem. New York’s finest are really rather popular with most people in that city, which has become safe and easy to live in. In London, on the other hand, we are moving in the other direction. The place is becoming ever less safe while the police is becoming ever less popular. Being seen as inefficient and too rough is a lethal combination. Then there is the undiscussed problem of Europol and its various rights, privileges and immunities. All in all, I don’t think any former Commissioner is going to rise as high as Bernard Kerik.

UKIP makes its presence felt again

The Environment Committee of the London Assembly publishes its first report of the new session today. This deals with the disposal of hazardous waste and the difficulties of implementing the many rules, all of which emanate from the European Union.

Among the portentous comments on the need for transnational regulations to deal with hazardous waste and the terrible inability of the British government to implement the wonderfully wise directives produced by the EU, there are a few low-key but sane comments from UKIP.

In the first place, Peter Hulme-Cross, UKIP representative on the committee, has pointed out that far from solving the problem the EU has magnified it, by producing contradictory directives. On the one hand, the scope of what is hazardous waste has been widened, on the other hand, the number of landfills that can take hazardous waste has been drastically reduced. In a country that has traditionally relied on landfills, like the UK, the result has been total chaos and increased fly-tipping.

It is true that the government and the various agencies have been slow in implementing the directives, a course of action that is, let us remember, legal obligation, but the reason for this is not hard to find. In order to implement EU directives and regulations swiftly and relatively efficiently (not an easy task if they make little sense and create a confusing situation) the government would have to admit to two things: the fact that the flood of EU legislation has not abated but actually intensified and the other, even more difficult fact that no British government or British parliament can refuse to implement whatever comes out of Brussels.

Admitting these things hurts. It hurts very much. So they prefer not to do it and hope that those pesky directives and regulations will simply go away. Alas, they never do.

In an unusual development, an annex was added to the report, also on UKIP’s insistence. In this a clear account is given on how EU legislation is initiated, discussed and agreed on behind closed doors in Brussels. The role of the Commission and the Council of Ministers is examined briefly and the British Parliament’s lack of power over any legislation that is EU competence explained.

Information and clarification of these vital matters is of utmost importance. UKIP at the London Assembly has set that as one of its most important tasks.

Our boys never sleep (we think)

Our readers will be glad to know that the UKIP London Assembly members are devoted enough to their duties to spend more than the accepted office hours on them. For instance, Peter Hulme-Cross will be spending his Saturday on a very important mission.

As member of the London Assembly committee on Safer London (and in case you are wondering it has nothing to do with the fact that people get knifed in their own homes by burglars), he will be attending an all-day conference on prostitution, called by the English Collective of Prostitutes. It is supported by various other Collectives of Prostitutes from other countries but, so far, as we can tell, not the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Collective. Why not, we ask. And should the Collective not be regionalized according to EU rules?