She said it

I think this (via Iain Dale) is the best comment so far on the Cabinet:

Kay Burley: So Liam Fox, Gordon Brown has named defective Tory Shaun Woodward in his Cabinet

Liam Fox: I think you meant defector, rather than defective, but your
words, not mine...

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

More Bowen

On my old blog I revealed a memo written by the BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen. It was exactly what one might expect. The "fragmentation" of Palestinian society has, in Mr Bowen's view, nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with Israel ("the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building - and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government"). Indeed, Israel is to blame for almost everything. The Palestinians are not responsible for anything; Israel is the culpable party. And he has contempt for every Israeli politician he mentions; Ehud Barak, for instance, is described as having killed "various Palestinians", written as if he did so for the sake of it.

So one should not be surprised that he's at it again:

BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says Mr Blair will have a tough task ahead of him. Israelis like Mr Blair because they believe he is on their side and Palestinians in the main do not trust him for the same reason, our correspondent adds.

This idle and gratuitous piece of mindreading comes in an article that reports the PA's welcome for Blair's appointment.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (4)

Complicating and hiding

I've only now caught up with Gideon Rachman's column on the EU treaty. It's a must-read; by far the best analysis I've read (Gideon was previously in Brussels for the Economist and knows how the EU works). It's sub only, I fear, but this is the gist of it:

EU leaders began their meeting with a constitutional text. Then, over many hours, they added endless footnotes, protocols and “clarifications”, which became more important than the original text itself. The result is almost impossible to read or understand. And that is entirely intentional. Many things happened at the summit. But perhaps the most important was that the EU finally abandoned the idea that it wants ordinary Europeans to understand what it is doing.

The abandonment of “transparency” brings the EU full circle to where it began when the idea of writing a constitution was dreamt up six years ago. Back then it was conventional wisdom that one of the Union’s biggest problems was that European citizens found it so hard to understand. Why not simplify the complex mess of interlocking treaties and incomprehensible language into a single, readable document?

Big mistake. It turned out that once Europeans were told what the EU was really doing, they were often horrified. The new, admirably transparent constitution was rejected by large majorities in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005. It was as if a manufacturer of tinned meat had suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to put a large notice on the front of the tin, stating: “This product contains reconstituted cows’ udders.” How surprising and hurtful that sales should fall as a result. What the EU decided to do at the summit was to put all the stuff about the repulsive ingredients that make up the Union back into tiny print on the side of the tin – or, in this case, into footnotes to the constitution.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

The BBC isn't interested in what actually happened

I always seem to be away on seismic days in British politics. I managed to watch PMQs - at least until the BBC decided that the end of the career of the most successful British politician in history was not as important as some bloody tennis. Tennis!

I'm watching the news online now, and am utterly perplexed at the BBC's decision - yes, them again - to devote so much of the Ten O'Clock News not to detailed reporting of what happened today but to a focus group on the relative electoral strengths of Messrs Brown and Cameron. How about actually telling us what the story was today, eh? Or is that too prosaic for the sophisticates who edit BBC news?

I was going to report to you a story I'd been given about the new Health Secretary from a usually very well informed source. Baroness Neuberger, I was told. It's a good job I  couldn't; it's Alan Johnson, apparently. Still, we can all rejoice that we won't have to listen to Patricia Hewitt patronising us again.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

S and M

I'm travelling so can't check this, but last night a French diplomat involved in the EU negotiations told me that the reporting of Sarkozy's removal of the competition statement in the treaty has been competely wrong.

Far from it being a hidden move by Sarkozy, he said, it had been agreed quite deliberately with Merkel and was very much a joint decision. "Have a look at the draft on which it first appeared" (or rather, I suppose, on which it was first removed), he told me. "It was published by the Germans" - which of course it would be, given they held the presidency. Sent via BlackBerry

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

Get with the programme or bu**er off

I'm just back from a fascinating but all too predictable meeting in Brussels with a senior - a very senior - EU official.

The feeling is, he told me, that Britain has now 'crossed the line' and 'will not be allowed to block further progress'. The view is, he said (and he was talking about other Member States rather than just Eurocrats) that the UK has 'blackmailed the rest of us for too long, and we have lost patience.' If we don't agree to the development of a deeper, full on political entity then 'they can go away and link up with the Faroe Islands'.

Here was the really chilling aspect of it: 'Look at what nearly happened on Friday to Poland. Who the hell do they think they are, threatening to disrupt everything. They should be grateful we let them in in the first place. Well, we taught them a lesson on Friday. If you don't sign up, we'll go ahead anyway and build a new structure without you. And guess what - they signed up.' That, I was told, was how the UK would be treated from now on, not least because while there was room for doubt over Tony Blair, who was felt to be 'a good European', there was no doubt about Gordon Brown, 'who makes clear what he thinks of the EU every time he comes to ECOFIN - he issues a press release and does his paperwork for two hours then goes home'. So he won't be allowed to impede further deepening.

As for the idea that this is just a few amendments rather than the old treaty in new guise: my interlocutor simply grinned. Really, never underestimate the force of the drive behind the project to take the EU ever deeper. The elites behind it will brook no opposition to their plans.

The remarks I report here are not in the least unusual in Brussels. We have to put every bit of pressure we can on Gordon Brown to call a referendum. But even if he relents, and we win - as the French and Dutch voters will tell you, don't think for a moment that's the end of it.

I'm on my way to Paris now to talk to some Sarkozy people about UK politics. I'll report back.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (4)

You can show your support for freedom

The petition supporting Sir Salman Rushdie's knighthood which I mentioned below is now online, You can sign it here. I normally consider these petitions a gimmicky waste of time. But it is precisely because it has the imprimatur of 10 Downing Street that it is, in this instance, imperative that it is signed. We have to demonstrate to the enemies of freedom that we stand behind Sir Salman in support of civilisation.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (4)

Hello again

I've been stranded in signal-less hell for the past few hours - it's known to some people as Belgium - so I've been unable to post.

The world and his wife have had their say on Harriet Harperson, but...

What on earth is the question to which the answer is Harriet Harman?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (3)

So much pure nonsense over a ring

I have a piece in today's Times on Friday's High Court action by Lydia Playfoot. Here's an extract:

The claim of religious significance should not, in a secular school, privilege a hajib over a silver ring or over a T-shirt proclaiming “I’m a stud”. All are simply forms of self-expression, and it is not relevant which is religious.

We have been here before. Last year Shabina Begum claimed that she should be able to wear a hajib at school because of her faith. The House of Lords correctly held that no such right existed.

Both these cases are, at root, the same. They stem from the dangerous belief that self-described religiously observant behaviour should, for that reason alone, be granted special status in secular areas.

But we do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy in which all sorts of differing beliefs share public space. That works only if all claims to special treatment through religion are held in the same regard – as being entirely without merit. I should no more be allowed to behave as I wish because I claim that my religion – the Finchley Church of Pollard Observants – compels me to than should Miss Proudfoot be able to wear her silver ring.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (5)

The Kamikaze meets the Sumo

Benedict Brogan has - as ever - a superb post about Harriet Harman's victory:

...I can't get out of my mind the image of Gordon and Harriet standing awkwardly together on stage (that and the new Labour leader's choppy bow at the end of his speech, part Kamikaze off to die, part Sumo about to crush his opponent). She looked sheepish, almost awe-struck. He looked flabbergasted to have ended up with her. It reminded me of Blind Date when the screen is pulled back and the two winners grapple with the shock of what they see.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)