The revised treaty

This is a republication of our original posting of June of this year, which started as an analysis of the European Council "mandate", produced at the June European Council in Brussels.

It is, at this stage, very much "work in progress" to which we are continually adding, with a view to producing a comprehensive document. When complete, we intend eventually to publish it as a .pdf file on this blog, to enable easy downloading as a reference document.

Introduction

On 21/22 June - spilling over into the early hours of the 23rd - the heads of states of governments of the European Union member states, accompanied by their foreign affairs ministers, attended a meeting of the European Council in Brussels, chaired by the German presidency.

Although widely trailed by the media and others as a "summit", it was no more such than a meeting of the British Cabinet. The European Council is a quasi-institution of the European Union, charged by Article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union with providing the Union with "the necessary impetus for its development" and with defining "the general political guidelines thereof". In effect, the European Council is the unofficial Cabinet of the government of the European Union.

Neither was the meeting convened to agree a treaty, much less sign up to one. Its precise purpose was to consider (and agree) a proposal by the German presidency for a draft "mandate" to instruct a subsequent Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) on the content of a treaty, ostensibly to replace the failed EU constitutional treaty.

In the event, the European Council did agree this "mandate" which ran to 16 pages (not two as some media reports would have it), including detailed footnotes. It was published on 23 June as Annex 1 to the The presidency conclusions. Although it had no legal authority to do so, the European Council then directed the IGC to "carry out its work in accordance with the mandate", declaring that, "the present mandate will provide the exclusive basis and framework for the work of the IGC".

Thus did the European Council hope that the mandate it has adopted would become the template for the treaty to be negotiated by the IGC. As of 5 October, it had been incorporated in a "provisional" draft treaty - the second version to have been produced, ready for the IGC of 18-19 October. Then, in the early hours of the 19 October, the IGC summit in Lisbon approved this draft with certain modifications.

This is our analysis of the documents so far produced.

1. Overview

Starting with the "mandate", the central feature of the document was to instruct the removal of any reference to a constitution in the new treaty. The new treaty produced from it has since been called as a "Reform Treaty", amending rather than replacing the existing treaties, the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The title "reform", however, is unofficial, without legal status. The official title is the "Draft Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community". In short, the document will be called the "Lisbon Treaty", to be signed on 13 December.

In producing the mandate and then the two draft treaties, the "innovations" from the EU constitution were removed - leaving the orginal treaties. The bulk of these so-called "innovations" (with some additions) were then written up separately as "amendments" to form the basis of the new treaty. When they are added to the existing treaties, the resultant consolidated treaty will be the constitution in all but name, with a few cosmetic changes and omissions.

As to the resultant treaties, it is propsed that the TEU will keep its present name and the TEC will be called Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. The word "Community" will throughout be replaced by the word "Union"; it will be stated that the two Treaties constitute the Treaties on which the Union is founded and that the Union replaces and succeeds the Community.

One of the cosmetic changes is that the terminology for EU laws, introduced by the constitution, such as "law" and "framework law" will be abandoned. The existing "regulations", "directives" and "decisions" nomanclature will be retained. Again, this is a cosmetic change - there is no practical significance to it.

However, the change of nomanclature has been sufficient for the government to assert that the constitution has been abandoned. This was demonstrated by a question posed by William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, who challenged Miliband on the comments of Giscard d'Estaing.

He had declared, of the European Council's "mandate" that: "This text is, in fact, a re-run of a great part of the substance of the constitutional treaty", adding, "the public is being led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."

In was in the answer, however, that the government's strategy becomes apparent, in holding the line against such assertions, maintaining that the "mandate" is not a re-run of the constitution. Miliband refused to be drawn on the Giscard statements, but instead referred directly to the first clause of the "mandate", which "clearly states":

The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called "Constitution", is abandoned —

"Not reformed," said Miliband, "not amended, but abandoned. The constitutional treaty has been abandoned. That is not just my view, nor is it just the view of our Prime Minister - it is the view of the 27 Heads of Government who signed the document."

The exchange continued but it need not trouble us, as we have the bones of the argument. It is developed by sleight of hand and relies on the substitution of one word with another. To see how it works, we have to note how Miliband refers, in the first instance, to the "constitutional concept", calling in aid the "mandate" as his authority.

Now, this "concept" was an innovation in producing treaties. All previous affairs had taken the form of amendments to the original Treaty of Rome. It was these amendments, and only these, the formed the basis of each subsequent treaty, until the constitutional treaty. Then, it was decided to absorb all the treaties and the proposed amendments into one consolidated text, which was to form the new treaty. That was the "constitutional concept", as indeed the "mandate" indicates.

The trouble with that was people - many for the first time - were able to see the full text and take on board how many powers had been ceded to the EU. Not a few of the complaints over the text actually related to powers handed over in previous treaties. Thus, the "colleagues" decided to abandon this "concept" and revert to producing another amending treaty, only this time they would call it a "reform treaty".

There we have the slight of hand. Miliband takes the phrase, "constitutional concept" and changes one word, to produce "constitutional treaty". In one fell swoop, the "treaty" has been abandoned. Except that it has not.

Interestingly a similar tactic has been tried before – by Tony Blair, when he reported on the European Council. Then, he offered the first clause of the "mandate" without even embellishing it, relying on his showmanship and emphasis to slide the point past the House.

2. The symbolic issues

The crucial cosmetic omissions will be the removal of "state-like symbols" from the new treaty, such as the EU flag, the anthem or the motto "Strength in Diversity". These are entirely cosmetic. The EU will continue to display its flag, it will continue to play it anthem at every opportunity and parade its "motto".

Even then, the new draft is not to be entirely without symbolism. Added to the the recitals will be the text of the first ricital of the the failed constitution, to be inserted as a second recital into the Preamble. That is as follows:

Drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy and the rule of law,

There will be no new Article on primacy of Union law, on the lines that which appeared in the failed constitution. This, though, is largely an academic distinction, as the IGC had been told to agree the following Declaration:

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case-law of the EU Court of Justice, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case-law." In addition, the opinion of the Legal Service of the Council (doc. 580/07) will be annexed to the Final Act of the Conference.

In effect, primacy will continue as before – but there will be no reference to it in the treaties.

3. Institutional changes

All the institutional changes found in the failed EU constitution have been lifted and placed in the new treaty. They have been integrated partly into the TEU and partly into the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union.

There is a new Title III, which gives an overview of the institutional system and will set outs the following institutional modifications to the existing system. This is to be found in the new Article 9:

the Articles on the Union's institutions,

the European Parliament (new composition)

the European Council (transformation into an institution)

creation of the office of President

introduction of the double majority voting system

new composition of the European Commission

strengthening of the role of its President

the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs

The president is to be elected by EU leaders for a two-and-a-half-year term will replace the current system in which EU leaders rotate into the president's post every six months.

The original proposal of for a "double majority" voting system allows for qualified majority voting to be carried with 55 percent of member states representing 65 percent of the EU's population.

As a concession to the Poles, introduction will be delayed until 2014, when it will be gradually phased in over three years.

The European Council

Much of the focus on the changes proposed has been on headline issues such as the appointment of a full-time president and a "high representative" to act as an EU foreign minister. Perforce, less attention has been given to other changes in this "institutional changes" section.

These, Blair would have us believe, are simply changes of rules to make the European Union "effective". More specifically, he told us:

This deal gives us a chance to move on, it gives us a chance to concentrate on the issues to do with the economy, organised crime, terrorism, immigration, defence, climate change, the environment, energy, the problems that really concern citizens in Europe. And this is why it was important to get out of this bind into which we had got with the constitutional treaty, to go back to making simple changes in our rules that allow us to operate more effectively now we are in an enlarged European Union, but most of all allow us to work effectively for the betterment of people inside the European Union.

In the manner of the joke about the Lone Ranger and his sidekick Tonto, however, the key to understanding what is going on is to ask, "who's this 'us' paleface?"

To answer this, in paragraph 12 of the mandate we find the dense but superficially anodyne statement that:

The institutional changes agreed in the 2004 IGC will be integrated partly into the TEU and partly into the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. The new Title III will give an overview of the institutional system and will set out the following institutional modifications to the existing system, i.e. the Articles on the Union's institutions …

The reference to the "2004 IGC" is of course the code for the EU constitution and the important modification here is to the "Articles on the Union's institutions".

To find these, we have to go to Article I-19 of the constitution, where we see the definition of the "institutional framework" and a statement of its aims. These are expressed in terms of the "Union" telling the institutions that their aims are to: "promote its values; advance its objectives; serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of Member States; and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions".

Now, the crucial point here is that the first three of these objectives are entirely new. And, of these, the third is especially important. It is to: "serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of Member States".

However, this is but a curtain raiser to another short insert in paragraph 12, which states (by way of one of the institutional changes): "the European Council (transformation into an institution…)".

This is of huge significance. Originally set up in 1972 by Jean Monnet, the European Council was presented, during its first meeting under president Pompidou as a "fireside chat" between the heads of states and governments of the then nine members of the EEC.

Indeed, the first meeting was in fact held in Pompidou's private salon, with members lounging in armchairs and even sitting by the fire, but Monnet had far greater ambitions for it. He styled it as nothing less than a "provisional government" of Europe, its task being to steer Europe though the "transition from national to collective sovereignty" (Memoirs, p. 503).

However, as is the way with the incremental development of the European Union, the European Council enjoyed a half-life outside the treaties, acquiring the appellation "summit", and reported almost universally as such by the media, growing from its origins as an informal "fireside chat" to the full-blown monster that it is today.

But, while it remained, in treaty terms, an informal body, it was formally recognised in the Nice Treaty (Article 4) which first defined its role as to "provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development" and to "define the general political guidelines thereof".

Thus, while it was seen as a meeting of heads of states and governments (now assisted by foreign affairs ministers), the inference being that they were representing their respective nations, the European Council was being drawn into the treaty maw. Although not yet a fully-fledged institution, it role was being more clearly defined as a representative body of the European Union.

Now, with this proposed change, the European Council is being defined fully as an institution. Furthermore, its aims have been set out, which it shares with the Commission, the EU Parliament and the European Court of Justice. It now will have developed into Monnet's "provisional government", acting, to all intents and purposes, as the formal "cabinet" of Europe.

The problem, of course, is that the members are still made up from the heads of state and governments of the member states. But, rather than representing their respective nations, they now act as a corporate body – an institution – the aims of which are, in respect of the Union, to: "promote its values; advance its objectives; serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of Member States; and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions".

Crucially, the requirement to serve the interest of the Union comes first, the "citizens" come second and the Member States come third. The order is neither accidental nor without significance. The European Council has to put the Union first. Tony Blair's "us" is the European Union.

Serving the EU is, de facto, what the European Council already does, but this is now to become de jure. That such an important change is tucked into a paragraph of an obscure document which few will read – and fewer will understand – is another of those dangerous and deliberate obfuscations, designed to defeat easy analysis.

It also represents a very significant transfer of power from member states, our leaders having been hijacked and impressed into the service of the Union – all the more dangerous because, as far as the media and the general public is concerned, they are part of an invisible institution, one that will, to them, remain a "summit".

4. Qualified Majority Voting

This is to be extended to 40 new areas - mainly in matters related to the police and the judiciary. The UK has negotiated an opt-out from criminal matters and police co-operation. The national veto will be maintained in the fields of foreign affairs, defence, fiscal matters, and social security and culture.

5. The foreign minister

The constitution's envisaged post of "foreign minister" has been dropped in favour of a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. He or she will also become vice-president of the union, "double hatted" as a representative of both the Council and the Commission.

There is a codicil to this appointment, with a declaration (which has no legal effect) that the post will not affect "the responsibilities of the member states, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy or their national representation in third countries and international organisations".

This is the BBC "take".

6. The Commission

From 2014, the Commission, will be reduced to 18 members, selected on a system of rotation. As now, commissioners will to serve five-year terms.

7. Legal personality

Lifted straight from the failed EU constitution, the European Union is to be given the status of a legal person. There will also be a declaration that: "the fact that the European Union has a legal personality will not in any way authorise the Union to legislate or to act beyond the competences conferred upon it by the member states in the treaties."

However, according to Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the Dublin-based National Platform for EU Research, politically, the most important thing the proposed new Treaty. It sets up a legally a new EU in the constitutional form of a supranational European Federation and makes us all real citizens of that State, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority, in contrast to our notional or honorary EU "citizenship" at present.

The legal personality gives the EU its own corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is legally separate from and superior to states like California, Kansas and New York, or Federal Germany is superior to Bavaria, Saxony etc. Politically and legally, this is the core element of an EU Constitution, which the Intergovernmental Conference is now being established to draw up.

Up to now the European Union has not had a legal personality or corporate existence in its own right. Only the European Community, which makes supranational EC laws, possesses that. Properly speaking therefore, there is thus no such thing as "EU" (European Union) law - only "EC" (European Community) law.

At present the name "European Union", which derives from the 1992 "Maastricht Treaty on European Union", is a descriptive term for the various forms of cooperation amongst the 27 EU Member States. These forms of cooperation cover the area of supranational law constituted by the European Community on the one hand, where the European Commission proposes all the laws, and on the other hand cooperation in the "intergovernmental" areas of foreign and home affairs, where Member States have up to now retained their sovereignty and the European Commission has no legislative role.

That is why the 1992 Maastricht Treaty is called the "Treaty ON European Union" rather than "OF" Union. The proposed revised constitutional treaty which the Intergovernmental Conference will now draw up would be in effect the "Treaty OF European Union".

8. The Charter of Fundamental Rights

Britain has been allowed to opt out of a charter of human rights and the charter will not become part of the treaty. This is to be added to the treaty by way of a new protocol, which will undoubtedly become a lawyer's paradise. The text is as follows:

The High Contracting Parties

Whereas in Article [xx] of the Treaty on European Union, the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Whereas the Charter is to be applied in strict accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned Article [xx] and Title VII of the Charter itself;

Whereas the aforementioned Article [xx] requires the Charter to be applied and interpreted by the courts of the United Kingdom strictly in accordance with the Explanations referred to in that Article;

Whereas the Charter contains both rights and principles;

Whereas the Charter contains both provisions which are civil and political in character and those which are economic and social in character;

Whereas the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles;

Recalling the United Kingdom's obligations under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Union law generally;

Noting the wish of the United Kingdom to clarify certain aspects of the application of the Charter;

Desirous therefore of clarifying the application of the Charter in relation to the laws and administrative action of the United Kingdom and of its justiciability within the United Kingdom;

Reaffirming that references in this Protocol to the operation of specific provisions of the Charter are strictly without prejudice to the operation of other provisions of the Charter;

Reaffirming that this Protocol is without prejudice to the application of the Charter to other Member States;

Reaffirming that this Protocol is without prejudice to other obligations of the United Kingdom under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Union law generally;

Have agreed upon the following provisions which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union:

Article 1

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in [Title IV] of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2

To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply in the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of the United Kingdom.

The version of the Charter as agreed in the failed constitution will be re-enacted by the three Institutions and will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Again, however, this is largely an academic distinction. The mandate states: "The Article on fundamental rights will contain a cross reference to the Charter on Fundamental Rights, as agreed in the 2004 IGC, giving it legally binding value and setting out the scope of its application."

Effectively, therefore, the charter will become part of the Treaty and will, therefore, apply in its entirety to EU law which, in turn, will apply to the UK. Progressively, therefore, more and more elements of the charter will apply to the UK.

This may be the most important part of the Reform Treaty as it will have a retrospective effect on all EU law. Essentially it introduces both a "Bill of Rights" plus the power of judicial review, i.e., the power to invalidate laws that do not comply with the charter to the ECJ. It thus gives the ECJ the power similar to that of the American Supreme Court, acquired since the 14th Amendment was broadly interpreted, i.e., truly supreme power.

9. Provisions on "democratic" principles

Other lifts from the failed constitution are those which the “mandate” calls provisions on democratic equality, representative democracy, participatory democracy and the citizens' initiative. Concerning national parliaments, the “mandate” declared that their role will be further enhanced.

• The period given to national parliaments to examine draft legislative texts and to give a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity will be extended from 6 to 8 weeks (the Protocols on national Parliaments and on subsidiarity and proportionality will be modified accordingly).

• There will be a reinforced control mechanism of subsidiarity in the sense that if a draft legislative act is contested by a simple majority of the votes allocated to national parliaments, the Commission will re-examine the draft act, which it may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw. If it chooses to maintain the draft, the Commission will have, in a reasoned opinion, to justify why it considers that the draft complies with the principle of subsidiarity. This reasoned opinion, as well as the reasoned opinions of the national parliaments, will have to be transmitted to the EU legislator, for consideration in the legislative procedure. This will trigger a specific procedure:

- before concluding first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure, the legislator (Council and Parliament) shall consider the compatibility of the legislative proposal with the principle of subsidiarity, taking particular account of the reasons expressed and shared by the majority of national parliaments as well as the reasoned opinion of the Commission;

- If, by a majority of 55% of the members of the Council or a majority of the votes cast in the European Parliament, the legislator is of the opinion that the proposal is not compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, the legislative proposal shall not be given further consideration. (the Protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality will be modified accordingly).

A new general Article will reflect the role of the national parliaments.

This was highlighted by commission president Barroso in a speech at the National Forum on Europe in Dublin, kick-starting his "Plan D of dialogue and democracy”. Then, he argued that the constitution went a long way to resolving the democratic deficit, because:

It gives the European Parliament a much greater role in decision-making, allowing it to amend and approve almost all new legislation. It throws open the doors of the Council when it is acting as a legislator, making it easier for citizens and national parliaments to monitor government positions. In fact, participatory democracy acquires a new status, with an entire title of the Constitution (Title VI) devoted to "The Democratic Life of the Union".

…the Constitution reconnects Europe with both citizens and national parliaments. It gives citizens the right to invite the Commission to introduce proposals on appropriate issues, if they can gather one million signatures in a significant number of Member States. And it gives national parliaments important new powers to enforce subsidiarity. They will be given early warning of all new legislative proposals from the Commission and the possibility to send them back for a rethink.

Now we see exactly the intention to re-introduce exactly the same provisions and, not doubt, exactly the same claims will be made for them.

Deconstructing these claims, we find again the use of that word "reconnect". This is part of the self-deception – delusion, even – of the élites , whereby the project was in the past somehow in tune with the "needs of the citizen" but has lost its way and must now be brought back on track. The lie is, of course, that the EU has ever "connected". It has always been an élite project and, therefore, any suggestion of a "reconnection" is a fraud.

10. A reference has been included to EU solidarity in the event of an energy supply problem.

11. A reference to the qualification criteria for new EU members was added (the Copenhagen criteria). The conditions for entry, therefore, will become part of the Treaty.

12. Treaty revision procedures

Currently, treaty revision is accommodated by means of a single article, Article 48, which deals with the convening of an IGC (precisely the mechanism being currently used to amend the treaties). The existing Article 48 will make it clear that the Treaties can be revised to increase or reduce the competences conferred upon the Union.

However, the "mandate" also extracts two particularly contentious provisions from the failed constitution, known as the "simplified revision procedure" (Articles 444 & 445).

The first of the simplified procedures provides for the Council to remove unanimous voting (the veto) from any provision in Part III of the (which accounts for the bulk of the policies), and to substitute qualified majority voting, without the inconvenience of convening an IGC. National parliaments, however, are given the power to block any such change - effectively a form of ratification - so the net effect of this is to sidelines the IGC.

The second of the procedures alllows for the revisions of text, within Part III, "on internal policies and actions of the Union", again without the inconvenience of convening an IGC.

These two provisions represent a significant increase in the power of the Union.

13. Voluntary withdrawal

There will be an article on voluntary withdrawal of a member state from the union.

14. Common Defence Policy

On page 26, in the eighth numbered paragraph under the anodyne heading: "Amendments to the EU Treaty Annex 1", this little gem:

8) In Article 11, insertion of a paragraph 1 reading as follows (the current text of paragraph 1 being deleted):

1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.

This is followed by a longer piece of text, which is reviewed below, but this is the crucial piece.

Now, in what might be evidence of hurried drafting, this raises a slight problem as the new paragraph of Article 11 actually replicates (in part) Article 17 of the Treaty, which reads, in full:

1. The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions relating to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy which might lead to a common defence, should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Presumably (although this is not stated), this paragraph will be deleted – the two passages can hardly stand in the same treaty.

What needs to be noted is the substantive difference, which is the deletion of this phrasing:

…should the European Council so decide. It shall in that case recommend to Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

This is replaced by a longer passage (broken into two paragraphs for ease of reading):

The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties.

We are back to the "devil in the detail". In the first passage, in the existing treaties, we see that the decision rests at the discretion of the European Council. But all it can do it make a recommendation to the member states, which can chose to adopt such a decision "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements." In the UK, this would require, at the very least, the approval of Parliament.

What is happening, therefore, is that the decision process on the "progressive framing of a common defence policy" is being re-framed, taking it away from the member states. Instead, it becomes the sole province of "the European Council and the Council", cutting out national parliaments and any reference to "respective constitutional requirements".

For sure, the decisions as EU level are still unanimous, but the fact is that, having been national decisions, they now become European Union decisions. Is this a small, technical point? Or does this represent a significant transfer of power from the member states to the European Union?

I suspect those who choose to see merely small textual changes of little significance will continue to do so, but any rational assessment of what is going is suggests that this is another small but significant step towards a Common Defence Policy.

This is the game the EU has been playing ever since Maastricht, when the policy was first introduced. Every treaty since, we have seen small, subtle adjustments in wording, every change tightening the screw slightly, bringing the "colleagues" slightly closer to their goal.

This change, this time, comes under the guise of a "Reform Treaty" instead of an "EU Constitution". The name might change, but the objective remains the same.

Documents

Open Europe analysis
Federal Union analysis

COMMENT THREAD

Imagine this was a "Snatch"

Continued from page 1.













COMMENT THREAD

Now it can be revealed...

Continued from page 1.

By a strange coincidence, part of the story was told recently, when the admirable American Thinker ran a piece by James Lewis, headed "Why the Brits are losing Basra". It relied heavily on our work and particularly on the Army's failure to provide blast-resistant military vehicles.

By another strange coincidence, that latter theme was taken up The Huntsman blog in a thoughtful and innovative fashion.

In the manner of what is termed "nettiquette", since both pieces linked to us, I was thinking about framing an appropriate response which would embed reciprocal links (which I have now done). But what then shaped this piece were two further events.

The first was a combination: the Financial Times report on the government monitoring blogs and Iain Dale's facile response, which brought from us the comment that the MoD already monitored our blog. This is part of the story because, if it had not, there would be troops today who would be dead instead of alive.

The second event was a report on this yesterday evening's BBC radio news which, unexpectedly, launched into a paean of praise about the Army's new Mastiff mine and blast-protected truck (pictured above and on page 1), which is now saving lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therein does lie our story – how that happy situation came about. But what finally pushed me into writing it was the offhand way in which the BBC made its report, ending in a complaint that, with only 100 Mastiffs bought, there were not enough of these life-saving vehicles to go round. How easily it forgets, but the BBC itself was one of the obstacles to getting these vehicles in service. At the very least, I felt, I had to point this out. How it did so emerges later in this story.

To tell the story, I checked first on the internet to see if the BBC had put its report on its website, to reproduce here. It was not up then (although it has now been posted), but I did find this story from The Scotsman published last week which, with a report on the MoD website, sets the framework for this tale.

The Scotsman story essentially conveys the same factual material which found its way into the BBC report and, because it is so illustrative, I am taking the unusual step of reproducing it in full. Headed, "new armed vehicles saved our lives, say soldiers," by John Bingham, it runs as follows:

British soldiers in Afghanistan told yesterday how they emerged unhurt after driving over landmines in new heavily armoured vehicles. Since arriving in Helmand province earlier this year the first of the fleet of Mastiffs have been through four mine strikes and 10 rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks with no casualties.

The Mastiff - built in the US with extra armour added in Coventry - is one of three new types of vehicle bought by the army to give extra protection from insurgent devices. The move followed criticism of the protection provided by earlier vehicles. The Mastiffs, operated by the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Tank Regiment, have been in action daily across Helmand since their arrival in March.

Coated with layers of steel, the underside is designed in a V-shape to deflect the impact of any mine strike upwards and away from the vehicle. It played a key role in launching a push against the Taleban in the Gereshk Valley by driving through a hail of fire to deposit troops safely at a bridge.

Corporal Ben Roder, of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Tank Regiment, told how he had been in command of a Mastiff carrying a three-strong crew plus six infantry troops when they drove over a mine. "We just heard a loud explosion, it echoed around inside, the vehicle jumped a little bit in the rear," Cpl Roder, 25, from Essex, said.

Up above, Trooper Leslie Wareham, 23, from Kent, was providing top cover when the blast went off. "At first I heard an explosion... then all the dust came up in front of me. I was thrown up a little and fell into the turret," he said. "My ears were ringing, all the dismounts [infantry] were asking if I was all right. I just shook myself and said I was good to go."

Cpl Roder added: "If we had hit an anti-tank mine like that in a Scimitar you would have had three extra coffins back in the UK."

And now for the story proper, which starts not during these wars but during the Falklands campaign. In the fate of the servicemen fighting there, I had a very personal interest as my brother-in-law was the engineer on board HMS Yarmouth, a ship which did gallant service – much of it unrecorded. It was the first on the scene after HMS Sheffield had been hit by a French-built Exocet missile. It could so easily have been Yarmouth that had been hit and it was brought home to our family how close we had come to losing someone very dear to us.

Largely unpolitical at the time, I nevertheless recall writing some very pointed letters to the MoD demanding – as seemed appropriate – that our ships should be equipped with Phalanx close in weapons systems, to protect them against these missiles. To be fair to the MoD, the replies I got were measured and reassuring. In the fullness of time, our ships were equipped with these guns.

The experience had two effects on me: firstly, it taught me how personal war really was – the prospect of real loss and intolerable grieving: something I would not wish on anyone.

Secondly, it triggered in me a determination that I should do what I could – however slight – to ensure that such loss was not visited on anyone if it could be avoided. Then and since – while realistic about the nature of war – I harboured a rooted objection to our service personnel being killed for want of adequate equipment.

This brings me to the second strand of the story, which is also not directly related to the issue at hand, but is an important part of it. The strand here concerns the MoD's selection of the Panther Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (FCLV), the full details of which need not trouble us here but, for those who need to refresh their memories, can be traced through this compendium of links.

One outcome, however, is directly relevant in that it demonstrated that the MoD was buying the wrong vehicle - and an extremely expensive one at that - for the wrong reasons, breaking its own rules in so doing in a procedure that was almost certainly corrupt.

Another outcome, which is also directly relevant, is that it introduced me to one of the better and cheaper alternatives – one which had been rejected by MoD in the procurement competition. This was the RG-31 which would have been – and still is – ideal for both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was then just being introduced by the US Marine Corps into Iraq and was being used by the Canadians in Afghanistan (pictured).

Now, at this point, some readers might (rightly) question my certainty that the Army had made the wrong decision, and my qualifications for making that assertion.

Here, I find myself empathising with the fictional hero of the film (and book), The Flight of the Pheonix - the aircraft designer who so successfully converted the wrecked C-119 "Flying Boxcar" into a single engined monoplane which flew the pilot and passengers to safety. In one of the supercharged scenes in the original 1965 film, which starred James Stewart as the pilot, the designer was forced to reveal that his skill was in designing model (not toy!) aircraft.

So it is with me. From a very young age, with two long-standing friends, I played war games, using scale model vehicles of increasing accuracy and sophistication. By the time we had finished, we were building exact replicas of WWII armoured brigades, down to the very last detail. With them, we re-enacted former campaigns, which we had studied in depth - devouring every book, manual and film we could get on the subject – having discussed them endlessly.

Such was our devotion that, as the owner of the German component, I needed a number of Sd. Kfz. 251/1 Hanomag half-track APCs. As there were no commercially available models, I spent time in the Imperial War Museum consulting the original manufacturers' blueprints, (manually) scaling them down to provide templates. With these, I then scratch-built my own models from sheet plastic, producing a fleet to equip my "army".

With that and a prolonged period in the cadet force, by the time of my exams, if there had been an A-level in armoured vehicles, I would have got an A triple-star. With my own military service, an abiding interest in things military, with constant reading reinforced by scouring the battlefields of Northern Europe and the Middle East, and frequenting military museums, I think I can claim more than a passing knowledge of modern military affairs. I certainly know my HVFSDS from my HEAT and my HESH, their effect on armour, and many other allied issues. I know a great deal more than some soldiers who would dismiss me as a "gobshite civilian" and, whatever they might call me, I will not have them die as long as there is something I can do to keep them alive.

Anyhow, this brings us to June of last year. Although I had touched on the subject before, by then I was noting a steady flow of deaths from what we had come to know as IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) with one thing in common. All the casualties had been riding in lightly-armoured "Snatch" Land Rovers. Although vehicles designed for public order duties in Northern Ireland, they had been pressed into service in November 2003, a decision approved by the then CGS Mike Jackson despite their being entirely unsuitable for the much more demanding and dangerous environment of Iraq.

If the media had noticed, it certainly was not writing about it and, while there was some discussion in Parliament, the idea of buying new vehicles had been dismissed by the minister. Thus, on 18 June I posted the first of what turned out to be a torrent of pieces, this one called "How Blair is killing our soldiers".

The ministers (and especially Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister - pictured with troops in Afghanistan) relied for their main argument on the claim that vehicles like the RG-31 were simply too big for the urban environment of Basra. To counter that, we launched into a sustained campaign exploring alternatives, debunking the minister's claims and looking more and more at the detail of the issue.

Here, some fascinating political issues come to the fore. Iain Dale might think it is objectionable that the "government" monitors blogs but they were most certainly doing this with EU Referendum by then. And, what makes him think that the communication is one-way? Directly and indirectly, the "conversation" developed into a two-way process.

What I did not know then, but was later told, was that ministers were – as is so often the case – speaking to the briefs prepared for them by their civil servants and, crucially, by senior military officers. What also emerged was that these people, advising the ministers, were implacably hostile to the whole idea of protected vehicles such as the RG-31. Despite the growing toll of wrecked Land Rovers and broken bodies, they were feeding the "line" that that alternatives would be wholly inappropriate for the theatre.

At that time, however, I had joined a discussion on the unofficial Army forum ARRSE, a thread that eventually ran to 21 pages. As the discussion develops, you can see something of that hostility, as I argued the case for new protected vehicles. More and more posters piling in to oppose the idea, some of them incredibly aggressive.

Bruising though it was, I also attracted some heavyweight support. Serving men and officers contacted me privately, telling me quite appalling stories of their experiences. I soon had enough to go to long-standing contacts in the media and, on 25 June, had managed to place a long article in The Sunday Times (complete with a front page "teaser" and a lead article). Only grudgingly did the story refer to its primary source, way down page:

Richard North, an author and internet blogger who has been campaigning over the failure to invest in heavily armoured vehicles, said: "It was an incredibly crass decision to reject the RG-31 and shows yet again the MoD's knack of creating a disaster of every procurement decision."

"They looked at whether to stick with cheap, second-hand Land Rovers that were not safe for use in Iraq at that time, or buy a vehicle that would save lives. What did they do? They stuck with the Land Rovers."

Nevertheless, with Booker having already written some superb pieces in his column, the media profile had been considerably enhanced.

This, it now transpires, had the politicians "wobbling", although not the civil servants or the Army. They continued to brief against our preferred replacement vehicle, finding a home in the BBC and Mick Smith's blog in The Times. "It might be good enough for the Canadians," Smith wrote. "You might even be able to get it on the ground very quickly. But its profile is all wrong and it's just that bit too big for Basra."

The following day, though, I was picking up another potential disaster, the Pinzgauer Vector, which I dubbed the coffin on wheels. With little more protection than the "Snatch" and some hugely dangerous design features, this was actually the Army's choice of protected patrol vehicle.

For once, though, with considerable behind-the-scenes pressure - not least a blizard of Parliamentary questions - the opposition parties in Parliament got their act together picking up on the Sunday Times article and mounting a spirited attack on the newly appointed defence secretary, Des Browne. With no help from the BBC, we extended the Parliamentary campaign into the Lords, and started a systematic attack on the claims that a replacement vehicle would be "too big for Basra".

Their Lordships mounted their own powerful attack and, with more powerful evidence, by two weeks into a relentless campaign, we had made the case.

Still evidence mounted up and, by 23 July - after Des Browne had announced a review of armoured protection - we were getting news that the MoD was to buy a hundred protected vehicles. These, however, turned out to be another 100 Pinzgauer Vectors, a move we called corporate manslaughter. But we also got an announcement that Des Browne was also ordering what was later to be called tthe Mastiff - perversely, much bigger than the RG-31 we had been promoting.

Despite his earlier attempt at trashing the RG-31, Mick Smith did his best to claim credit for The Sunday Times (with no mention of this blog, of course) and the rest, as they say, is history. Except that the history is still being made. The purchase of the Mastiff was a political decision, imposed in the teeth of opposition from the Army, which preferred the highly vulnerable Pinzgauer Vector. Soon enough, the Army reverted to type, with the purchase of an insane vehicle, the Supacat WIMIK, that proved they had learnt nothing at all.

The thinking reflects the Army's obsession with cross-country performance, which drives the design of its vehicles. Thus, in the choice of design, it first looks to optimise that performance and then, as a secondary objective, it seeks to protect the vehicle, literally bolting-on protection. But, as the Rhodesians and South Africans had found decades before, appliqué solutions simply do not work. Protection must be designed in. The design strategy, therefore, must be to create a suitable shape, and then add cross-country performance - a simple concept that the Army seems incapable of grasping.

And so we come almost to the present day. At the beginning of this account, we had The Scotsman retailing how troops in a Mastiff had survived uninjured from a mine strike. Yet, two weeks ago, we saw a Vector attacked, with one dead and two injured. Despite the attempt at a cover-up, I am more than ever convinced that, had these troops been riding in a Mastiff, they would have survived uninjured.

And that is at the heart of the continuing battle. The well-protected Mastiff was a political choice and the Pinzgauer Vector was the choice of Army "experts". The troops have expressed their views on the Mastiff – the graveyards will cast their own verdict on the Vector.

So far, though, we can aver that this blog did play a pivotal role in the procurement of the Mastiffs and, if the BBC is now complaining that not enough have been bought, it did nothing to get any of them into theatre and is doing nothing to ensure that more are obtained.

Furthermore, for all the self-important prattling of the so-called "political" blogs – which lifted not a finger in support of the campaign for better vehicles - our blog, in mobilising the media, parliamentarians and allies showed what a blog can do. It was not enough and we do not lay claim to having done this all ourselves. It was truly a team effort, where the media and parliamentarians (and service personnel and their relatives) played key roles. But we are proud of what we did, even if we bear a savage hatred for those fools and knaves who still put our troops unnecessarily at risk – and for those who are indifferent to their fate.

COMMENT THREAD

Damage limitation

8.54 am Today Programme

Sarah Montague: Since the 1970s, the heads of government of the different EU countries have held regular informal get-togethers. Over the years, these summits, called the European Council, have become more formalised and now the new treaty would for the first time make the Council one of the Union's formal institutions. Some are saying it's a huge change that will dramatically shift the balance of power.

Gisela Stuart is a Labour MP who was part of the group that drew up the European constitution. Robert Jackson is a former minister. He left the Conservative Party and joined Labour because of the Tories’ opposition to Europe.

Good morning to you both.

Both: Good Morning.

SM: Gisela Stuart. Before we look at the effects of this can you give us just a little bit of an explanation, a definition of what the European Council is?

GS: It's when heads of government meet together and it used to be that they met together to coordinate the interests of the nation state. What that new structure actually does – its almost when you look at any institutional governance. It makes them now part of it, the way like, for example, a federal state like Germany would have a directly elected parliament but there'd be another institution which represents the federal component. We in the UK, we have Parliament and the Lords, the two chambers. What this new structure does, is that body where heads of state meet, they become subordinate to the Union's interests, become part of that working and they will now have a duty to represent the interests of the Union, the interest of the member states. And the third and much more interesting element is that the constitutional treaty will potentially allow for that president of that body also to be the same person as the president of the commission. Therefore it's a consolidation of the way the Union works into a structure that is much more like a government.

SM: Robert Jackson, that sounds like a dramatic shift of power.

RJ: Well, I don't agree with that assessment. I mean, there's a long historical debate going back to the beginnings of the European Union about whether it's going to develop on federalist lines or on intergovernmental lines. And the original federalist concept was that that the Commission would become the government with the Council of Ministers a kind of senate and the European Parliament as the kind of House of Commons of the European structure. But since the 1970s, the development of the European Council – the regular meetings three times a year of the heads of government – has shifted the balance towards intergovernmentalism and this is consolidated in this treaty.

SM: So you're saying that basically they're acting more in the interests of member states than the EU?

RJ: Well they… my view is that the European Union has always been about the cooperation of the member states. They've created a number of common institutions to enable them to pursue common policies in areas where they want to have them, er, but basically the states have always been in the driving seat. The federalist vision which was of a genuinely supranational, commission-driven system has faded, and what we have now in this draft treaty is a final consolidation of the development to an intergovernmental system based on the member states.

SM: Gisela Stuart, when you imagine the heads of government, the heads of all the EU countries, governments, sitting down in a room together, it’s difficult to believe that they suddenly leave their responsibilities for acting for their own countries at the door and suddenly start thinking, acting for the EU?

GS: Robert was right in the Union when you had six or even twelve or possibly even up to 15. He really should look at how the Union’s developed in the last 10-15 years. You now have 27 heads of government sitting round the table and more of them. They will decide by qualified majority. We now even have a duty imposed on national parliaments how they should act. And we have a commission no longer representing every member state. So, by about 2014, when all these changes have come into place, the dynamics of power by far more member states, so for the member states to be the driving force will be much more unlikely because for the 27 to agree will be much more difficult than the original six were. So I think Robert was right in the 90s but he’s failed to understand how the Union's developed in the last 10-15 years.

RJ: Well, I just don't agree with that assessment. Gisela's making a strong point …

SM: 27 is very different from a handful.

RJ: I think 27 means that this consolidates this move towards intergovernmentalism because these 27 different countries all have their different interests. And what happens is a much more complicated process of coalition-building between the different states. And meanwhile, Gisela's point about legal duties to further the interests of the Union. Now, I mean, those are words on paper. In practice, member states will consult their interests and they will work together when they think it's in their interests and otherwise not.

SM: Robert Jackson, Gisela Stuart, thank you.

COMMENT THREAD

A trip to Tripoli

At first the release of the Bulgarian medics after eight years of incarceration and torture by the Libyan government was greeted joyfully by all believers in the European project and the need for “Europe” to have a common foreign policy. Here is a wonderful example, they chortled, of “soft power” that is sooooooooooo much more effective than the nasty hard power of the Americans.

An article in Transitions Online, a largely Europhile site that deals with Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, breathes a sigh of relief at Europe finally showing willingness to work together and exert pressure as a single entity after a period of discord, what with arguments about Turkey’s possible entry and those cheeky referendum results in France and the Netherlands.

There is also a problem of public perception that is seriously misguided in TOL’s opinion:

It is no surprise then that Brussels has an image problem. The latest survey conducted by the Eurobarometer polling service shows that in some of the 27 member countries, support for the EU has tumbled since 2004, when enthusiastic crowds marked the unification of East, West, North, and South.

The survey shows that fewer than half of Czechs, Hungarians, and Latvians think EU membership is a good thing, ranking citizens in these new states alongside the EU-bashing British and the increasingly anti-EU Austrians. Support for EU membership fell in the Czech Republic (from 51 to 46 percent) and in Latvia (from 43 to 37 percent) in just six months.

Across the EU, 59 percent of those surveyed said their countries had benefited from membership, yet only 40 percent of Hungarians think they have gained. In Bulgaria, public opinion is evenly divided on this front, although the survey was conducted before the Bulgarian health workers were freed.

Never mind. All this can be put behind us. The one thing Eurobarometer seems to show is that the people of all these doubtful member states want to see a stronger and more united common foreign and security policy. It does not occur to the author of the article that the reason might be because that is something that does not concern people directly and so they do not really care.

The freeing of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian born doctor showed that the people were right and the leaders were wrong – united foreign policy can work.

The success in freeing the Bulgarians is a demonstration that the public may know how to wield power better than turf-protecting national leaders. For three years, the EU and its emissaries assiduously negotiated with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, seeking to free the five nurses and a Palestinian-born physician, who were convicted of deliberately infecting children with HIV. (They maintained their innocence throughout their eight-year ordeal.)

Europe’s offer of full economic and political partnership for Libya is a reward for the release of the health workers. It also acknowledges Qaddafi’s cooperation on other fronts in recent years, most notably his decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction. Europe, in turn, gains renewed access to the petroleum-rich country’s resources and an economy ready for investment after years of sanctions.

Actually, most of us would call that bribery. Even TOL is not altogether happy.

Granted, doing deals with Libya is not an ideal example of enlightened foreign policy. Qaddafi remains an absolute ruler, an opportunist who has reopened doors to the West but not to democracy. The economy remains largely under central control and may stymie foreign investors.

Never mind. This is soft power at work. Inevitably that cheerleader for the European project, Andrew Moravchik, who directs the European Union Programme at Princeton, came in on the act with an article in the Financial Times on July 30:

The deal over the freed medics is the fruit of years of negotiation with Britain, France and Brussels. Europe came wielding “soft power” in the form not of enlightenment moralism but tough-minded economic diplomacy.

Colonel Gadaffi received payments for stricken Libyan families, a promise to normalise economic ties with the EU and the affirmation of a French presidential visit, following Mr Blair’s stop-over last month. Bulgaria got its nurses back and French companies received an attractive deal for a desalination plant. Add to that the generous oil and arms deals granted to Britain and a little praise for EU officials, and nearly everyone comes away a winner. At the core of Europe’s success is the premise that if you cannot fight hostile governments, you must “flip” them, patiently negotiating incremental progress. Engagement on these terms is a tough political road. Those who choose it must attend to the complex domestic politics of foreign societies, with all the ethical ambiguities and compromises that entails.

Or, in other words, good old-fashioned bribery.

In fact, the whole story is not really as straightforward as all that. For one thing, the EU or even European politicians were not alone in their pleas or demands that the medics be released. Condoleezza Rice made statements as did President Bush and, even a few assorted international celebrities such as Bianca Jagger. While TOL and the Financial Times cheered European diplomacy, Der Spiegel expressed reservations.

Sarkozy traveled to Tripoli on Wednesday just a day after his wife Cecilia flew out of Libya on a French presidential plane with the five Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor on board. The French president and Gadhafi signed five key agreements on future cooperation, including deals on defense and civilian nuclear energy.

The French even agreed to help the Libyans develop a nuclear reactor to desalinate water. But critics in Germany and France have questioned the wisdom of promoting atomic energy in a country that until 2003 had been trying to develop a nuclear weapons program. The Libyan leader has since renounced terrorism and signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but many German commentators and politicians argue that the country is still a dictatorship and so its promises should be viewed with caution.

So, what we have here is a complicated deal negotiated by President Sarkozy with the help of Mme Sarkozy between France and Libya, which will, one assumes bring in money to France (who else will build that reactor?) and help Libya to build up defence structures up to and including nuclear power (to be used peacefully, of course). Errm, where is the money coming from?

Libya, of course, has oil and may well be able to use income from its sale to pay for all those French developments. But, let us not forget, that as part of the great European demonstration of soft power, Libya has also been offered various financial inducements. Are these going to be used in the deals signed by Presidents Sarkozy and Gaddafi?

There is also the question of Mme Sarkozy. She went to Libya twice to discuss the fate of the imprisoned medics with Gaddafi, sidelining the EU negotiators and, according to some sources, offering various amounts of money.

What a wonderful idea, having the wife of the President become involved in tricky international negotiations. Imagine if the First Lady of the United States did that. What would be the reaction of the ultra-sophisticated European media?

In the deal, the EU paid €9.5 million to improve conditions at the childrens' hospital in Benghazi where the medics had worked. EU Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had settled a deal before the EU summit in June, according to SPIEGEL's Berlin sources. But on her first visit to Tripoli, Mrs. Sarkozy reportedly offered funds to modernize yet another hospital -- which gave the Libyans a reason to hold out for more money.

The centerpiece of the negotiations was the so-called Benghazi Fund, set up to help families of the infected children. The goal was to pay $1 million (€724,000) in damages per child. The first $44 million came from Bulgaria in the form of debt forgiveness. The Libyan government contributed $74 million, while the EU promised only the money earmarked to clean up the hospital.

Naturellement, none of this is ransom paid over for the nurses. Would the EU or France, who seems to have done well out of the deal, do such a thing? Jamais.

The story did not stop at everybody congratulating everybody else. On August 1, Le Monde published an article, which quoted Colonel Gaddafi’s son on the subject of what had been negotiated.

Saïf Al-Islam Gadhafi cannot be called a reliable source but, nevertheless, what he is supposed to have said is very interesting. According to this scion of the ruling family, there were two unmentioned aspects to the agreement, which brought about the release of the medics – an arms deal between France and Libya and an undertaking on Britain’s part to release the supposed Lockerbie bomber, imprisoned in Scotland.

This, as Nidra Poller, writer and journalist who resides in Paris and is a supporter of Nicolas Sarkozy, points out, has been exercising the French media, who do not seem to be over-impressed by the whole story.

Why do critics on the Right and Left feel it necessary to jump to the conclusion that there is a dirty deal to be revealed and Sarkozy is the guilty party? Because they don’t think he could have liberated the unjustly imprisoned Europeans any other way. They don’t think he could have outsmarted Muammar Ghaddafi. The French president’s brief 25 July stopover in Tripoli would reinforce this impression. The preliminary agreements signed that day have become fully developed contracts in the public mind. And the revelations of the dictator’s son, conveniently poured into the ear of Le Monde, confirm what everyone knew had to be true.

But if it is true, if that is the deal, why would Ghaddafi’s son embarrass France’s president by exposing it for all the world to see? Does that augur well for future military cooperation? Why not remain discreet, and let things happen naturally as a result of gradually improved relations between Libya and the European Union? Why did Sarkozy have to liberate the nurses and doctor before signing contracts and agreements that had been under negotiation for years, while the prisoners endured “fictional” tortures in Libyan jails? Was the fake exploit just sugar coating on a bitter pill— stupendous military dealings with a pariah state—that European citizens would be forced to swallow?

If so, the sugar coating is gone. In humiliating the French president by exposing the deal he was desperately trying to hide from his gullible citizens, Saif al-Islam has sabotaged the supposed PR benefits accrued by Sarkozy’s showy show of concern for the fate of the Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor.

And what if Sarkozy did outsmart the Libyans, father & son, daughter & all? Tricky little guy, convincing them that the nurses and doctors would rot in Bulgarian jails that are almost as bad as the Libyan ones, and from there on in it would be a Franco-Libyan honeymoon? Might they want to get revenge? By spilling the beans, even if the beans are fake?

This cannot spare us the unpleasant task of facing yet another possibility: Nicolas Sarkozy did sincerely and effectively promise Libya re-entry into the cozy world of European finagling complete with military cooperation, arms deals, exploitation of natural resources, credibility, respectability, and Euros for all…in the heart of a Mediterranean Union… from which Israel would be excluded.

Some of the story is being confirmed. As the Guardian pointed out yesterday and the International Herald Tribune today,

European Aeronautic Defense & Space confirmed Friday that it was close to signing two weapons contracts with the government of Libya, which would be the first arms deal with the North African country since the European Union lifted military sanctions nearly three years ago.

Word of the contracts, worth €296 million, or $405 million, by some reports, came just a week after President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and his wife, Cécilia, visited Tripoli, visits that contributed to the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who had spent more than eight years in prison for supposedly deliberately infecting hundreds of Libyan children with the virus that causes AIDS. The case had long strained Libya's relations with the European Union.

The news that EADS - which is 15% owned by the French government - had "finalised" the deal to sell French-designed Milan anti-tank missiles came 48 hours after Saif ul-Islam Gadafy told Le Monde that Libya would be buying the anti-tank missiles from France.

One wonders what else is going to come out about the deal. While, of course, we are all very pleased that the Bulgarian medics are free and back in Europe (the Palestinian born doctor, who had had a particularly bad time because the Libyans dislike the Palestinians, had lived in Bulgaria for some years) we cannot help wondering what will happen next time some tyrannical dictator, such as Colonel Gaddafi decides that he wants to buy some arms and there are difficulties in his way.

One thing is certain. As a demonstration of Europe’s successful soft power the story leaves something to be desired.

Cynicism and modernization

From the moment we all became aware of the Tory jaunt to Rwanda, some of us have been engaged in furious altercations about it. Inevitably, whenever I raised such questions as what can one actually build in two weeks and do these people have any building skills, I was told that I was a cynic, as if that were the worst kind of accusation in politics.

As it happens, I do have my fair share of cynicism, much of it to do with politicians and their shenanigans. It does not seem to me to be particularly sensible to go around pretending to be like the mushy Madeleine Bassett created by the incomparable P. G. Wodehouse, who was given to pronouncements on the subject of stars being God’s daisy chain and babies being born every time a fairy blew its wee nose. She was, needless to say, an idealist, who would not even understand cynicism, let alone experience it, and a considerable pain in the neck to all those around her, especially Bertie Wooster.

The main character in the recent excellent German film “The Lives of Others” (“Das Leben der Anderen”), Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler, played by the superb Ulrich Mühe, whose death, alas, was announced a couple of days ago, is an idealist in Felix Dzerzhinsky’s mould. He sees himself and the secret police as the “sword and shield of the revolution”. Idealism is not necessarily an unequivocal good in politics or anything else.

However, I would never, never be cynical enough to try to further my career or get publicity for myself (same thing as far as MPs are concerned) by exploiting the needs of a poor country, which is, moreover, still recovering from the traumatic experience of just over a decade ago. For that is what this cynical exercise in attempted media manipulation is.

As it happens, I exempt Iain Dale and the small 18 Doughty Street team (I am sure he will be very happy to hear that). Apart from the odd bit of gushing here and there, he did what he was supposed to do and what he does for a living – report. His accounts of organizations within Rwanda, set up by Rwandans to deal with the genocidal massacre – finding out the truth, helping survivors and their families, prosecuting the guilty – are extremely useful. We need to know these things and the people there need to feel that the world outside is, at least, interested.

But what about the others, the Cameroon groupies, the Tory MPs who do not seem to know how to handle planks of wood, the Tory wannabes, who are busy blogging in the manner of not very bright gap-year students? What exactly are they hoping to achieve?

When the subject came up during a programme on 18 Doughty Street, the journalist next to me suggested that they could have collected all the money that they were going to spend on their flights and given them to the people there to build whatever they want. That sounds promising except for the fact that we know what happens to money that is just simply handed over to African countries.

Here is a better suggestion: why not use all the money, including whatever does not need to be spent on tropical outfits and new cameras to hire a building firm? You know the guys who can actually construct those schools and hospitals and whatever else is required. This firm would take its own materials if needs be and tools, and, again if needs be, employ local workers (who could do with the money, let’s face it) and train them as necessary.

I can hear it now. That is such a cynical suggestion. What do you think the purpose is - to make sure that the Rwandans are helped along in their desire to reconstruct their country, construct some new buildings and retain their local economy? Certainly not. It is all about warm and fuzzy feelings in the hearts of Tory politicians and wannabe politicians, not to mention former actresses, now contributing editors on the Spectator. And stars are God’s daisy chains.

The Boy-King himself did not pretend to do any work, as far as I can make out, remembering perhaps the gusts of laughter that went up in Britain when he appeared in his clean gloves, clutching a paintbrush. He met lots of people and made encouraging noises. Then he invited President Kagame of Rwanda to address the Conservative Party Conference.

There were immediate cheers from the faithful but, sadly, critical noises were heard equally quickly. President Kagame stands in danger of being indicted for complicity in that unfortunate event, when a plane carrying both the Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down in 1994, that triggered off the subsequent Rwandan genocide.

President Kagame and his supporters point to the fact that these accusations come from French sources, which are not particularly reliable when it comes to the Rwandan events of a decade ago. Nevertheless, there is enough doubt surrounding this personage, under whose rule Rwandan forces have become heavily involved in the appalling and never-ending war in DR Congo with all its massacres.

The Boy-King seems not to have heard of any of these matters although, supposedly, one of the reasons for his wondrous trip to Rwanda was to commemorate the ending of the genocide ten years ago. It would appear that none of his advisers have realized that President Kagame is a dubious figure both politically and morally.

The truth is that being ever so chummy with doubtful African politicians, trying not to know about their activity, is sooooo last century. Actually, it is behaviour that belongs to the sixties and early seventies when left-wing African dictators were feted in Britain by both parties, regardless of what was happening in their countries, and all criticisms were ignored or not even published.

What on earth is the lad doing reviving those days? Sadly, one must point out that all he ever does is revive old-fashioned ideas. One hears a great deal of his modernizing zeal and his firm intention to modernize the Conservative Party. He was repeating this mantra again last week at the 1922 Committee meeting, which, unfortunately, did not point out any home truths to the arrogant little twit.

He will not give up on the task of modernizing the Conservative Party and regaining the centre ground whence all elections are won. Except for the ones like many past Conservative victories that are won from positions of ideological rectitude but let that pass.

This idiotic mantra is being repeated on the latest Cameroonian platform, a website named Platfrom 10 that is possibly indulging in a nod and a wink to the Harry Potter readers. Then again, it may be reminding readers of the Glenn Miller number “Chattanooga Choo-choo”.

This new effort, we are told, has been put together by Conservative supporters who are not part of the Conservative Party. They just happen to be fascinated by details of what goes on in that Party.

Among their cutely entitled sections there is one called “What’s the big idea?”. This tells us that the creators of Platform 10

… are a group of Conservative supporters, campaigning for the modern, liberal Conservative agenda that will lead to a Tory victory at the next General Election.

We support the changes David Cameron is making - and must continue to make - to the Conservative Party so that it remains firmly in the centre-ground of British opinion. We will hold him to his pledge that under his leadership the Conservatives must look, feel, think and behave like a completely new Party.

All of that is questionable but takes the view that all you have to do is mention modern and modernization and the world starts laughing with you rather than at you. This reminds me of the days, back in my youth, when the theatres of London performed something apart from endless musicals (no, they don’t bring in the money either but that is another story) and I saw a number of plays by the gloomy Norwegian Henrik Ibsen.

One and all, they seemed to consist of people nattering about the importance of new ideas as opposed to old ideas. The worst example of this was “Rosmersholm” where Pastor Johannes Rosmer and the idealistic, forward looking, modern minded Rebecca West spend a good deal of time praising new ideas and lamenting the strength with which people have clung on to the old ones.

Just as with Conservative modernization, those new ideas are never really spelled out and given the sort of ideas that were swirling round Europe and Scandinavia at the end of the nineteenth century, the concept does not fill one with any sort of joy. As it happens those new ideas in “Rosmersholm” seem to have achieved one thing only and that is drive the Pastor’s wife to suicide. Eventually, he and Rebecca West follow the wife into the mill stream to the great satisfaction of that part of the audience that had not lost the will to live.

So what is this modernization that everyone keeps talking about but nobody can define? In the end, it seems to boil down to the question of picking candidates and trying to make the candidates’ list to extend beyond the usual Tory-boy of varying physical and same mental age.

While, in principle, one supports the right of local associations to choose their own candidates, in practice they come up with complete losers a lot of the time. Tony Lit, whose name will undoubtedly will be mentioned in the discussion, did nothing terrible. He did not win but Ealing Southall was not there for the Conservatives to win and it was not his fault that the spin insisted this could be done. I believe, he actually increased the Tory vote.

Bob Neill, on the other hand, picked by the Bromley and Chislehurst Conservative Association to great gusts of triumphant giggles and despite guidance from the top, nearly lost one of the safest Conservative seats to the Lib-Dims. It is now a marginal seat that may or may not stay in Tory hands at the next General Election. So much for the local associations’ acumen.

Apart from the arguments about the list what is there about the Cameroonian vision that is modernizing? Does he really believe that the Conservative Party has had no tradition of social policy until he, the first left-wing toff since Harold Macmillan, came along? Does he not know about Disraeli, the debates around the Corn Laws or the concept of property-owning democracy?

It seems not. Apparently, he believes that the moment he mentions social problems, he becomes a modernizer. The question is, surely, how he intends to deal with those problems and the answer is that all his ideas, far from being modernizing are actually a drift back to notions that were considered to be sort of revolutionary about fifty or sixty years ago.

The one thing the Cameroonies are terrified of is genuinely modern ideas that are trying to break away from the mess of the last half century and more.

Think about it. Aid, which is to be pushed up on the Conservative agenda? A failed policy that anyone with any sense and without any vested interest is trying to discard with even a few Conservatives like Peter Lilley trying to look for alternative policies. Incidentally, when I made these points about aid in the presence of one very nice Cameroonie young lady she argued passionately that aid would be all right if there were an international organization that would control the flow of money and ensure its efficacy. Appointed by the UN, I asked. Guess what? She accused me of cynicism. I believe she went to Rwanda as well.

What else? Education? No choice for the people with the gentleman and lady in Whitehall and the local town hall knowing best. How very old-fashioned, almost quaint, except for the danger in it.

Public sector? To be run by the state - an idea that takes us back to the halcyon days of the beginnings of the welfare state.

High taxation to pay for all this is hardly a modern idea. In fact, let’s face it, Cameron is a latter day Butskellite.

Environmentalism? There are some very interesting modern ideas out there about the need for private property if we are serious about dealing with environmental and conservation issues. They have all passed by the Boy-King and his coterie.

Foreign policy? All that blathering by Hague and Dame Pauline indicates that the Conservative Party leadership has managed to miss out on the most exciting modern idea in international affairs – Anglospherism.

Above all, his and his chums’ clear allegiance to that most outdated idea of all, the old-fashioned, sclerotic European Union shows that all that talk about modernization is piffle. A true modernizer would by now have started looking for ways out of the quagmire and subsequent alternatives.

Would it be possible to have a little less talk about the Boy-King’s modernizing tendencies? Let us call it by its real name – a return to the pre-Thatcherite dark ages of British politics; a complete refusal even to contemplate modern ideas that are needed if we are to drag this country to its rightful position in the world. Cameron, the anti-modernizer, is not the man to do it.