SIZING Europe landed his seventh Grade One in taking the Paddy Power Dial-A-Bet Chase at Leopardstown yesterday.
Reported by Daily Star 1 day ago.
Sizing Europe sizzles
↧
↧
Isolation from Europe wouldn't be splendid for the UK | Alain Minc
The EU without Britain will be less free; without the EU, Britain will be irrelevant. It mustn't quit
For a passionate Anglophile like me, the prospect of the UK leaving the EU![ext]()
is a disaster. A disaster for Europe, but also for Britain itself. In a world in which our continent is being slowly marginalised, a union without Britain would be paralysed down one side. This certainly holds for the Americans, because even though the "special relationship" may no longer exist, London isn't a European capital like any other. It also holds for a vast swath of the world from the Gulf to New Delhi, from Cairo to Singapore, for which European influence is historically identical with the British presence. And it holds for the Chinese, who are counting "economic divisions" the way Stalin once counted military ones, and for whom a Europe amputated in this way is seriously weakened.
But it's not just about Britain's global strategic presence. The EU needs the UK as a tireless advocate of the free market, and of competition with member states – France first and foremost – that have less of a market culture while remaining subject to protectionist and mercantilist temptations. And last, in a world where the values of freedom and democracy are the order of the day, for Europe even more than for the US, the absence of "the land of habeas corpus" would be an unfortunate symbol.
However, even without the UK, Europe will keep on going. Without Europe, on the other hand, the UK will be at a dead end. Since joining the EU Britain has pursued a very skilful policy towards Brussels: it has benefited from the single market, reduced its budgetary contribution without having convincingly explained why, and perfected the art of the opt-out. In terms of European policy, these are the equivalent of "warrants" on the financial markets – the chance of profiting from an opportunity without paying the full price. Why would the leaders of Britain, so famed for its tradition of common sense and empiricism, abandon a strategy that suits them so well in favour of a more ideology-based approach. How can they imagine that a UK, liberal and open to globalisation, would be to Europe what Hong Kong is to China?
Continental Europeans aren't altar boys. Can anybody really imagine they're going to let the most profitable activities stay solely within London, and allow the City to remain the financial capital of the euro without Britain sharing the rights and duties of the EU? Today, ambiguity is the mainstay of the City: the continentals might well put up with the capital of the euro being outside the eurozone but still in the EU. They won't – politically, economically or financially – accept it being outside the EU. There's no point even trying to imagine the UK being treated like Norway or Switzerland, keeping all the advantages of the single market. You grant advantages to countries you hope will one day join the gang, not to a country that's just slammed the door in your face.
Let the British be under no illusions. It's not the French who will be most aggressive about this, but the Germans. The French will still be attached to the idea of maintaining a little counterbalance with regard to Berlin; the Germans will continue to follow their well-trodden path of reason and power, albeit somewhat tempered. Without the UK – a traditional brake on the strengthening of European institutions – the onward march will resume more easily, and the eurozone, soon to be widened to include Poland![ext]()
, will integrate more quickly and become de facto Europe, aside from two or three member states.
With a "continental blockade" across the Channel, commercial agreements between London and Brussels won't be easy to negotiate – which way will the UK look? Towards the US? But Barack Obama sees the Europeans, the British included, the way we Europeans see the Swiss: slightly weary rich friends who don't create any problems for you but don't bring you any solutions either. What's the point of a UK back in splendid isolation when its preoccupations are Chinese, Asian and Pakistani? And what weight will an isolated country of 65 million people carry in the eyes of the Chinese, or even the Indians?
The wager of the British Eurosceptics is based on a double premise: taking advantage of the single market and the euro while remaining outside it; and being a "hub" of a globalised economic space. The first premise relies on the continentals being conciliatory, when in fact they'll be acrimonious. The second confuses London and the UK. Even if London maintains the extraordinary status it has invented for itself, which makes it the capital of the non-American world today, that's not going to be enough to ensure a decent standard of living in the Midlands, Wales or Scotland.
What can we call a fatal error in history? An irreversible decision based on a mistaken diagnosis with incalculable consequences. To leave would be one.
• Translated by Shaun Whiteside Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 day ago.
For a passionate Anglophile like me, the prospect of the UK leaving the EU
is a disaster. A disaster for Europe, but also for Britain itself. In a world in which our continent is being slowly marginalised, a union without Britain would be paralysed down one side. This certainly holds for the Americans, because even though the "special relationship" may no longer exist, London isn't a European capital like any other. It also holds for a vast swath of the world from the Gulf to New Delhi, from Cairo to Singapore, for which European influence is historically identical with the British presence. And it holds for the Chinese, who are counting "economic divisions" the way Stalin once counted military ones, and for whom a Europe amputated in this way is seriously weakened.But it's not just about Britain's global strategic presence. The EU needs the UK as a tireless advocate of the free market, and of competition with member states – France first and foremost – that have less of a market culture while remaining subject to protectionist and mercantilist temptations. And last, in a world where the values of freedom and democracy are the order of the day, for Europe even more than for the US, the absence of "the land of habeas corpus" would be an unfortunate symbol.
However, even without the UK, Europe will keep on going. Without Europe, on the other hand, the UK will be at a dead end. Since joining the EU Britain has pursued a very skilful policy towards Brussels: it has benefited from the single market, reduced its budgetary contribution without having convincingly explained why, and perfected the art of the opt-out. In terms of European policy, these are the equivalent of "warrants" on the financial markets – the chance of profiting from an opportunity without paying the full price. Why would the leaders of Britain, so famed for its tradition of common sense and empiricism, abandon a strategy that suits them so well in favour of a more ideology-based approach. How can they imagine that a UK, liberal and open to globalisation, would be to Europe what Hong Kong is to China?
Continental Europeans aren't altar boys. Can anybody really imagine they're going to let the most profitable activities stay solely within London, and allow the City to remain the financial capital of the euro without Britain sharing the rights and duties of the EU? Today, ambiguity is the mainstay of the City: the continentals might well put up with the capital of the euro being outside the eurozone but still in the EU. They won't – politically, economically or financially – accept it being outside the EU. There's no point even trying to imagine the UK being treated like Norway or Switzerland, keeping all the advantages of the single market. You grant advantages to countries you hope will one day join the gang, not to a country that's just slammed the door in your face.
Let the British be under no illusions. It's not the French who will be most aggressive about this, but the Germans. The French will still be attached to the idea of maintaining a little counterbalance with regard to Berlin; the Germans will continue to follow their well-trodden path of reason and power, albeit somewhat tempered. Without the UK – a traditional brake on the strengthening of European institutions – the onward march will resume more easily, and the eurozone, soon to be widened to include Poland
, will integrate more quickly and become de facto Europe, aside from two or three member states.With a "continental blockade" across the Channel, commercial agreements between London and Brussels won't be easy to negotiate – which way will the UK look? Towards the US? But Barack Obama sees the Europeans, the British included, the way we Europeans see the Swiss: slightly weary rich friends who don't create any problems for you but don't bring you any solutions either. What's the point of a UK back in splendid isolation when its preoccupations are Chinese, Asian and Pakistani? And what weight will an isolated country of 65 million people carry in the eyes of the Chinese, or even the Indians?
The wager of the British Eurosceptics is based on a double premise: taking advantage of the single market and the euro while remaining outside it; and being a "hub" of a globalised economic space. The first premise relies on the continentals being conciliatory, when in fact they'll be acrimonious. The second confuses London and the UK. Even if London maintains the extraordinary status it has invented for itself, which makes it the capital of the non-American world today, that's not going to be enough to ensure a decent standard of living in the Midlands, Wales or Scotland.
What can we call a fatal error in history? An irreversible decision based on a mistaken diagnosis with incalculable consequences. To leave would be one.
• Translated by Shaun Whiteside Reported by guardian.co.uk 1 day ago.
↧
Any EU deal must make Britons feel 'comfortable', says Europe minister
David Lidington dismisses EU warnings that David Cameron's drive to repatriate powers would lead to unravelling of bloc
David Cameron is determined to forge a new European settlement to ensure Britons "feel comfortable" about membership of the EU, according to the Europe minister.
In a Guardian interview, David Lidington dismissed the warning by the European council president, Herman Van Rompuy,![ext]()
that plans by the prime minister to repatriate powers would lead to the unravelling of the EU.
"We need a settlement that enables the British people to feel comfortable with membership of the EU," Lidington said. "While we could survive outside, that would not be the best outcome for British interests, either economic or political."
Responding directly to Van Rompuy's warning that member states cannot "cherry-pick" policies, Lidington said: "I give a certain amount of short shrift to some of the charges of cherry picking. I say: 'Hang on, why is it that we have a single market in services that is very far from complete? Why no single market in transport yet?
"There are lots of ideas around, and the reality is that every member state has its own interests and tries to promote those within the context of European business. We need to continue to push very hard for the greater liberalisation that will rebuild prosperity and competitiveness, not just in Britain but throughout Europe, and keep Europe facing out to the rest of the world and not become introverted and protectionist."
Lidington praised Van Rompuy's handling of the European council but said his criticisms of Britain were to be expected from a former prime minister of Belgium. "As the head of an EU institution and as a distinguished former Belgian prime minister, President Van Rompuy is going to be more friendly to the traditional EU view than a UK view would be. He has been previously head of a small member state, and small member states have traditionally looked to a strong commission, a strong European parliament, a strong community method as their protection against the big member states."
Van Rompuy issued his warning as the prime minister prepares to outline plans in a speech in the new year to repatriate powers from the EU after the 2015 election. It is expected that Cameron will offer to hold a referendum on the new settlement, which he would demand as Britain's price for supporting changes in the governance of the eurozone, if he wins an outright majority at the next election.
Lidington said Britain would be in a strong position in the negotiations. "The prime minister is very well aware that what he puts forward at the next election, in terms of European policy, is going to have to be negotiated with others.
"But we shouldn't underestimate our negotiating hand, just as we shouldn't overestimate it. There is a risk of giving up before your start and the prime minister is very determined not to do that."
Cameron had shown at the two recent EU summits on the budget and on banking union – as have George Osborne on financial services regulations and Vince Cable pressing for reform of the single market – that Britain can shape events in Europe. "What we can point to is a record of practical and successful negotiation, sometimes in the face of a very difficult background," he said.
Lidington said it was not just Britain calling for a new EU settlement. José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, called for a reopening of the treaties in 2014 to move towards a federation of nation states. Nobody would be forced to go along with that, Lidington said. "In that speech [Barroso] looked forward to a major renegotiation at some stage in the medium term and to some kind of differentiated integration," Lidington said.
"Minds are not as closed as some domestic commentators suggest.
"Angela Merkel has been saying we need to look at this question of a [eurozone] political union and ask how we make democratically accountable moves towards greater fiscal and economic integration. A number of leaders in different European countries are turning their minds to what type of architecture is going to work for a Europe in which some countries in the single currency are likely to choose to move towards closer fiscal and economic integration. That raises profound questions of democratic accountability, as well as very serious questions of economics. That is the context in which we would be putting our ideas on the table. It would not just be the UK that was not in this group of countries moving towards close integration.
"So it is not just the UK that will have an interest in designing a system that is fair to all member states, but which also allows those who have opted for the single currency to move towards the greater integration they are seeking."
Lidington added that the need for democratic accountability was a serious issue across the EU. "A third of French voters in the first round favoured a presidential candidate – Marine Le Pen or Jean-Luc Mélenchon – who campaigned openly against the EU as it currently exists," he said. Citing the rise of the Jobbik party in Hungary, he added: "In too many European countries now there has been a show of support for parties that are not just populist – I don't put Ukip in this category – but are a throwback to a very unpleasant part of European history."
Lidington, one of the longest-serving Europe ministers who has visited every EU member state since his appointment in 2010, occupies a highly sensitive position in government. On one side he has to deal with the traditionally pro-European Liberal Democrats while on the other he has to remain on friendly terms with a large number of Tory MPs who want to withdraw from the EU.
One of Lidington's major tasks is to oversee a coalition exercise, covering the whole of Whitehall, to examine the impact of the EU in more than 20 different areas of government policy. A series of reports, written by civil servants and approved by ministers, will be published from the spring of next year until 2014 to examine the impact of everything from directives to the European Court of Justice.
Lidington said: "I hope we will end up at a place where the European debate in this country is probably about the best informed anywhere around the EU."
Mark Rutte and Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Dutch and Swedish prime ministers, are understood to be keen to contribute to the British examination of the future of the single market. Ever the diplomat, Lidington is careful not to name any other countries.
But Reinfeldt, who is David Cameron's closest EU ally, is interested. Clegg disclosed in a Guardian interview that Rutte, his closest EU ally, is also interested in what the deputy prime minister described a "kind of desktop exercise".
Eurosceptics, who hope Lidington is sitting in a darkened room in the foreign office to write a report that will make an overwhelming case for Britain to withdraw, will be disappointed. He characterises it as a coalition exercise that will provide fodder for every major party.
"This is not going to lead some enormous package of European reform. That is for political parties to decide upon when they prepare their manifestos for 2015."
The former Elizabethan doctoral student speaks about Europe with an enthusiasm rarely heard on the Tory benches. He described the political developments in eastern Europe, from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (when he was working as an adviser to Douglas Hurd) to the enlargement of the EU to the east, as "probably the single best, most glorious thing that has happened in international relations in my lifetime".
Lidington said: "It was the reunification of a continent that had been divided since 1914. If you like it was the lights going on again that Edward Grey [foreign secretary 1905-1916] saw being extinguished.
"I am a pragmatic British Tory, and I don't get emotional about Europe. But actually seeing democratic institutions, rule of law, normal European ways of life in Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria – this is really exciting and it is moving too. And that would not have been possible without the UK's engagement."
Lidington says his most moving moment as Europe minister came in 2010 when he attended the 20th anniversary of German unification in Bremen. This finished with a concert performance of the finale from Fidelio, Beethoven's only opera, which tells the story of a nobleman, Florestan, who is rescued from prison by his wife dressed as a prison guard, Fidelio.
"Somehow that just seemed so right," Lidington said of the concert. "That is what is best about this enterprise. There are times when I want to scream with frustration at the bureaucracy or about the wrong-headedness or the over-centralisation of this.
"But there are other times when you actually see why I believe the effort should be to reform and improve the settlement and not to walk away from something that can be of huge value and to which the UK can make a great contribution that serves our interests as well as a collective European interest." Reported by guardian.co.uk 19 hours ago.
David Cameron is determined to forge a new European settlement to ensure Britons "feel comfortable" about membership of the EU, according to the Europe minister.
In a Guardian interview, David Lidington dismissed the warning by the European council president, Herman Van Rompuy,
that plans by the prime minister to repatriate powers would lead to the unravelling of the EU."We need a settlement that enables the British people to feel comfortable with membership of the EU," Lidington said. "While we could survive outside, that would not be the best outcome for British interests, either economic or political."
Responding directly to Van Rompuy's warning that member states cannot "cherry-pick" policies, Lidington said: "I give a certain amount of short shrift to some of the charges of cherry picking. I say: 'Hang on, why is it that we have a single market in services that is very far from complete? Why no single market in transport yet?
"There are lots of ideas around, and the reality is that every member state has its own interests and tries to promote those within the context of European business. We need to continue to push very hard for the greater liberalisation that will rebuild prosperity and competitiveness, not just in Britain but throughout Europe, and keep Europe facing out to the rest of the world and not become introverted and protectionist."
Lidington praised Van Rompuy's handling of the European council but said his criticisms of Britain were to be expected from a former prime minister of Belgium. "As the head of an EU institution and as a distinguished former Belgian prime minister, President Van Rompuy is going to be more friendly to the traditional EU view than a UK view would be. He has been previously head of a small member state, and small member states have traditionally looked to a strong commission, a strong European parliament, a strong community method as their protection against the big member states."
Van Rompuy issued his warning as the prime minister prepares to outline plans in a speech in the new year to repatriate powers from the EU after the 2015 election. It is expected that Cameron will offer to hold a referendum on the new settlement, which he would demand as Britain's price for supporting changes in the governance of the eurozone, if he wins an outright majority at the next election.
Lidington said Britain would be in a strong position in the negotiations. "The prime minister is very well aware that what he puts forward at the next election, in terms of European policy, is going to have to be negotiated with others.
"But we shouldn't underestimate our negotiating hand, just as we shouldn't overestimate it. There is a risk of giving up before your start and the prime minister is very determined not to do that."
Cameron had shown at the two recent EU summits on the budget and on banking union – as have George Osborne on financial services regulations and Vince Cable pressing for reform of the single market – that Britain can shape events in Europe. "What we can point to is a record of practical and successful negotiation, sometimes in the face of a very difficult background," he said.
Lidington said it was not just Britain calling for a new EU settlement. José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, called for a reopening of the treaties in 2014 to move towards a federation of nation states. Nobody would be forced to go along with that, Lidington said. "In that speech [Barroso] looked forward to a major renegotiation at some stage in the medium term and to some kind of differentiated integration," Lidington said.
"Minds are not as closed as some domestic commentators suggest.
"Angela Merkel has been saying we need to look at this question of a [eurozone] political union and ask how we make democratically accountable moves towards greater fiscal and economic integration. A number of leaders in different European countries are turning their minds to what type of architecture is going to work for a Europe in which some countries in the single currency are likely to choose to move towards closer fiscal and economic integration. That raises profound questions of democratic accountability, as well as very serious questions of economics. That is the context in which we would be putting our ideas on the table. It would not just be the UK that was not in this group of countries moving towards close integration.
"So it is not just the UK that will have an interest in designing a system that is fair to all member states, but which also allows those who have opted for the single currency to move towards the greater integration they are seeking."
Lidington added that the need for democratic accountability was a serious issue across the EU. "A third of French voters in the first round favoured a presidential candidate – Marine Le Pen or Jean-Luc Mélenchon – who campaigned openly against the EU as it currently exists," he said. Citing the rise of the Jobbik party in Hungary, he added: "In too many European countries now there has been a show of support for parties that are not just populist – I don't put Ukip in this category – but are a throwback to a very unpleasant part of European history."
Lidington, one of the longest-serving Europe ministers who has visited every EU member state since his appointment in 2010, occupies a highly sensitive position in government. On one side he has to deal with the traditionally pro-European Liberal Democrats while on the other he has to remain on friendly terms with a large number of Tory MPs who want to withdraw from the EU.
One of Lidington's major tasks is to oversee a coalition exercise, covering the whole of Whitehall, to examine the impact of the EU in more than 20 different areas of government policy. A series of reports, written by civil servants and approved by ministers, will be published from the spring of next year until 2014 to examine the impact of everything from directives to the European Court of Justice.
Lidington said: "I hope we will end up at a place where the European debate in this country is probably about the best informed anywhere around the EU."
Mark Rutte and Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Dutch and Swedish prime ministers, are understood to be keen to contribute to the British examination of the future of the single market. Ever the diplomat, Lidington is careful not to name any other countries.
But Reinfeldt, who is David Cameron's closest EU ally, is interested. Clegg disclosed in a Guardian interview that Rutte, his closest EU ally, is also interested in what the deputy prime minister described a "kind of desktop exercise".
Eurosceptics, who hope Lidington is sitting in a darkened room in the foreign office to write a report that will make an overwhelming case for Britain to withdraw, will be disappointed. He characterises it as a coalition exercise that will provide fodder for every major party.
"This is not going to lead some enormous package of European reform. That is for political parties to decide upon when they prepare their manifestos for 2015."
The former Elizabethan doctoral student speaks about Europe with an enthusiasm rarely heard on the Tory benches. He described the political developments in eastern Europe, from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (when he was working as an adviser to Douglas Hurd) to the enlargement of the EU to the east, as "probably the single best, most glorious thing that has happened in international relations in my lifetime".
Lidington said: "It was the reunification of a continent that had been divided since 1914. If you like it was the lights going on again that Edward Grey [foreign secretary 1905-1916] saw being extinguished.
"I am a pragmatic British Tory, and I don't get emotional about Europe. But actually seeing democratic institutions, rule of law, normal European ways of life in Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria – this is really exciting and it is moving too. And that would not have been possible without the UK's engagement."
Lidington says his most moving moment as Europe minister came in 2010 when he attended the 20th anniversary of German unification in Bremen. This finished with a concert performance of the finale from Fidelio, Beethoven's only opera, which tells the story of a nobleman, Florestan, who is rescued from prison by his wife dressed as a prison guard, Fidelio.
"Somehow that just seemed so right," Lidington said of the concert. "That is what is best about this enterprise. There are times when I want to scream with frustration at the bureaucracy or about the wrong-headedness or the over-centralisation of this.
"But there are other times when you actually see why I believe the effort should be to reform and improve the settlement and not to walk away from something that can be of huge value and to which the UK can make a great contribution that serves our interests as well as a collective European interest." Reported by guardian.co.uk 19 hours ago.
↧
David Cameron 'risks leading Britain out of EU by accident'
Veteran of Maastricht treaty negotiations says PM has misread EU leaders' willingness to concede to his demands
David Cameron has been warned that he risks leading Britain out of the European Union by accident because he has misread the willingness of fellow EU leaders to concede to his demands for a looser European union.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard – who was at the heart of Britain's team during the Maastricht treaty negotiations in 1991 – fears the UK is facing "bust-up time" with the other 26 EU countries.
He is one of a group of pro-Europeans, including Lords Heseltine, Mandelson and Brittan, expressing their concerns that Cameron is miscalculating Europe's determination to keep the current EU project intact, without the UK if necessary.
Cameron is due within weeks to indicate that after the next general election he would be prepared to hold a referendum on a new EU settlement – after repatriating powers during treaty negotiations aimed at underpinning eurozone governance.
But the strength of the remarks by the pro-European grandees is a stark reminder to Cameron that domestic pressure over Britain's relations with the EU will not just come from his Eurosceptic wing.
Kerr, who was Foreign Office permanent secretary between 1997 and 2002, told the Guardian: "I think that the Cameron strategy, if he was back in Downing Street with a majority, could lead to our leaving by accident. I think there is an analytical error."
Kerr's intervention, on the final day of a Guardian series on the EU, follows a warning by the European council president, Herman Van Rompuy![ext]()
, that Cameron's plans could unravel the EU.
Kerr, who was the lead British official in Brussels during the Maastricht treaty negotiations in 1991, says the Conservatives believe that all Britain's EU partners will agree to Cameron's demands in 2015 at an intergovernmental conference (IGC).
"I think they genuinely believe people are going to leap to their feet to sing Ode to Joy or Rule Britannia and it is a done deal. And then we will have a referendum on this new deal.
"But supposing the rest of the EU don't leap to their feet? It doesn't take one lonely Czech. It takes them all. This is an IGC, so it is unanimity rules. They have all got to agree every word of the changes we want.
"You could find yourself in an awkward situation in which you are stuck with a referendum pledge on the new deal and there is no new deal, or there is a new deal so trivial that it is mocked by Ukip and the press. In either scenario, it seems to me there is a risk that Cameron finds himself arguing we must go. I am sure that it is not what he wants to do."
Warning of "nasty" and "horrible" negotiations, he added: "It sounds more like bust-up time."
Lord Mandelson, the former Labour business secretary, warned Cameron of the forces he is unleashing inside the Conservative party: "It will be a very unattractive circus, rather as the Conservative party became under John Major in the 1990s."
The former EU trade commissioner said Cameron had next to no chance of succeeding. "We are in no position unilaterally to impose new terms of membership on the other 26 members of the EU. What he's really saying is he wants to remain in Europe but detached from it, in it but to all intents and purposes out of it. And there is no reason why the other 26, soon to be 27, members of the EU would agree to that. And from their point of view they shouldn't. It would start the rapid disintegration of the European Union.
"He's not going to win by pointing a gun at everyone else's heads. Patience with Britain, tolerance of this in-but-out approach, is now very thin indeed. If it came to it they would realise that they had to regroup with all the members of the EU bar Britain that were prepared to commit to the European Union and leave Britain out."
Brittan, a former trade commissioner, described a referendum as a "Bonapartist device" inconsistent with parliamentary democracy and questioned Cameron's negotiating strategy. "All negotiations are trades. Any British government that wants to do that has got to ask itself the question: what are we going to offer in return? I haven't heard any answer to that question. Maybe it is premature."
Lord Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister, said Britain had constantly underestimated Europe's determination to make the EU and the euro work. "They read the British press, they read the speeches, they know what's being said and they don't detect in us a partner for the venture they have undertaken. And therefore they are faced with a dilemma. They want us there. But they want us there as partners with commitment. There is the fear that our initiatives are not to strengthen the venture but to act contrary to it."
Heseltine said he feared that Britain's semi-detached status allowed Germany to dominate the EU. "I just see the German chancellor becoming more and more the leader of Europe. And I'm not in the business of that happening at the expense of this country. I have no criticisms of the German position. They're doing what I would do in their position."
David Lidington, the Europe minister, described Cameron as a "canny, hard-headed and skilled negotiator" who appreciated the value of Britain's EU membership. But he added: "People feel that over years powers have been transferred always in one direction from member states to Brussels, never the other way round. And they have never been asked to consent to that. So that is why he talks about a new relationship and a fresh act of public consent." Reported by guardian.co.uk 16 hours ago.
David Cameron has been warned that he risks leading Britain out of the European Union by accident because he has misread the willingness of fellow EU leaders to concede to his demands for a looser European union.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard – who was at the heart of Britain's team during the Maastricht treaty negotiations in 1991 – fears the UK is facing "bust-up time" with the other 26 EU countries.
He is one of a group of pro-Europeans, including Lords Heseltine, Mandelson and Brittan, expressing their concerns that Cameron is miscalculating Europe's determination to keep the current EU project intact, without the UK if necessary.
Cameron is due within weeks to indicate that after the next general election he would be prepared to hold a referendum on a new EU settlement – after repatriating powers during treaty negotiations aimed at underpinning eurozone governance.
But the strength of the remarks by the pro-European grandees is a stark reminder to Cameron that domestic pressure over Britain's relations with the EU will not just come from his Eurosceptic wing.
Kerr, who was Foreign Office permanent secretary between 1997 and 2002, told the Guardian: "I think that the Cameron strategy, if he was back in Downing Street with a majority, could lead to our leaving by accident. I think there is an analytical error."
Kerr's intervention, on the final day of a Guardian series on the EU, follows a warning by the European council president, Herman Van Rompuy
, that Cameron's plans could unravel the EU.Kerr, who was the lead British official in Brussels during the Maastricht treaty negotiations in 1991, says the Conservatives believe that all Britain's EU partners will agree to Cameron's demands in 2015 at an intergovernmental conference (IGC).
"I think they genuinely believe people are going to leap to their feet to sing Ode to Joy or Rule Britannia and it is a done deal. And then we will have a referendum on this new deal.
"But supposing the rest of the EU don't leap to their feet? It doesn't take one lonely Czech. It takes them all. This is an IGC, so it is unanimity rules. They have all got to agree every word of the changes we want.
"You could find yourself in an awkward situation in which you are stuck with a referendum pledge on the new deal and there is no new deal, or there is a new deal so trivial that it is mocked by Ukip and the press. In either scenario, it seems to me there is a risk that Cameron finds himself arguing we must go. I am sure that it is not what he wants to do."
Warning of "nasty" and "horrible" negotiations, he added: "It sounds more like bust-up time."
Lord Mandelson, the former Labour business secretary, warned Cameron of the forces he is unleashing inside the Conservative party: "It will be a very unattractive circus, rather as the Conservative party became under John Major in the 1990s."
The former EU trade commissioner said Cameron had next to no chance of succeeding. "We are in no position unilaterally to impose new terms of membership on the other 26 members of the EU. What he's really saying is he wants to remain in Europe but detached from it, in it but to all intents and purposes out of it. And there is no reason why the other 26, soon to be 27, members of the EU would agree to that. And from their point of view they shouldn't. It would start the rapid disintegration of the European Union.
"He's not going to win by pointing a gun at everyone else's heads. Patience with Britain, tolerance of this in-but-out approach, is now very thin indeed. If it came to it they would realise that they had to regroup with all the members of the EU bar Britain that were prepared to commit to the European Union and leave Britain out."
Brittan, a former trade commissioner, described a referendum as a "Bonapartist device" inconsistent with parliamentary democracy and questioned Cameron's negotiating strategy. "All negotiations are trades. Any British government that wants to do that has got to ask itself the question: what are we going to offer in return? I haven't heard any answer to that question. Maybe it is premature."
Lord Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister, said Britain had constantly underestimated Europe's determination to make the EU and the euro work. "They read the British press, they read the speeches, they know what's being said and they don't detect in us a partner for the venture they have undertaken. And therefore they are faced with a dilemma. They want us there. But they want us there as partners with commitment. There is the fear that our initiatives are not to strengthen the venture but to act contrary to it."
Heseltine said he feared that Britain's semi-detached status allowed Germany to dominate the EU. "I just see the German chancellor becoming more and more the leader of Europe. And I'm not in the business of that happening at the expense of this country. I have no criticisms of the German position. They're doing what I would do in their position."
David Lidington, the Europe minister, described Cameron as a "canny, hard-headed and skilled negotiator" who appreciated the value of Britain's EU membership. But he added: "People feel that over years powers have been transferred always in one direction from member states to Brussels, never the other way round. And they have never been asked to consent to that. So that is why he talks about a new relationship and a fresh act of public consent." Reported by guardian.co.uk 16 hours ago.
↧
Lord Mandelson: austerity means EU faces decade of unpopularity
Former EU commissioner says he expects eurozone to recover, but fears falling living standards will affect European unity
Continued austerity and falling living standards mean the European Union is facing a decade of further unpopularity and strains on its unity, requiring urgent reforms to survive, according to Lord Mandelson, the former EU commissioner.
He is one of a group of Britain's prominent pro-European grandees deeply aware that the Conservative leadership is as much reflecting as leading a shift away from Europe in British popular opinion, partly due to the euro's travails and partly due to a long-term ambiguity about the need for Europe.
This group, interviewed by the Guardian before David Cameron's landmark speech on Europe next month, may be united in their opposition to Cameron's negotiating tactics, and its diplomatic dangers, but they insist they are not complacent about the EU as an institution.
Mandelson's assessment is the most stark: "I think that the eurozone is on life support and that cures for its ills can be found eventually. I'm more worried about the politics of austerity Europe, the huge adjustment that Europe is going to have to make in the coming decade and beyond in terms of its financing and its living standards and the impact this is going to have on European unity and solidarity.
"Now this goes to the heart of the EU's political legitimacy because whether you are from an austerity member state or a bailout country, you are likely to be dissatisfied for a long time to come with the economic state of Europe and the price you are paying for Europe's indebtedness and its relative failure to generate the wealth it needs to pay for its high standard of living. That's going to have a negative political impact on how people regard the EU and its institutions and that's what we've got to understand and address. These raise real issues and challenges of political management and accountability of Europe's affairs. And we've got to pay as much attention to what needs to be done politically to repair Europe as we do economically and in the running of the eurozone. These are very deep questions for the EU's future and they're not going to be solved by a touch more austerity here or a further bailout there."
Lord Brittan, one of Mandelson's predecessor's as EU trade commissioner, also acknowledges "there has been a major shift in public opinion here about Europe". He says: "The Eurosceptics have had the public space to themselves to a greater extent than one would have wished. The pro-Europeans have been too content to win the actual decisions.
He says the situation may have come about under John Major. When he was prime minister "there was a group of people who were a minority, but his Commons majority was not sufficiently great for it to be in his interests to rub their noses in it too much. He had to win. The result of that was that the public space was filled in the way it was."
Lord Heseltine, possibly the most prominent pro-European voice in the Conservative party, attaches the strength of Euroscepticism to Britain's different wartime experience. In mainland Europe, he says, "men and women who had come out of the prisoner of war camps and the resistance movements felt deeply war must never happen again. Britain's position at that time was a very different one. First, we hadn't lost, we had won. Secondly, we had stood alone. Thirdly, we were the partners, as we perceived, of the United States of America. And fourthly we were the head of the greatest empire and commonwealth the world had ever seen. This was not a position from which you threw in your lot with people from a totally different psychological experience."
But he believes the poison really entered the British political system when Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1986, creating a single market across Europe. He said this occurred at a time when "the economy at the end of the 80s went sour. It was a time when everybody was looking for alibis, escape clauses, someone to blame, and it coincided with the introduction to this place of hundreds of regulations in order to comply with the directives of Brussels. Well, this is a formula for political tension. And so a coalition of national press, plus the aggrieved industrial commercial world, turned the Brussels machine into a hate character and I think that was the huge turning point when the resentments became bitter and entrenched. Where I think there is a degree of political responsibility is that instead of explaining that this was the inevitable conclusion of creating a single market of hundreds of millions of people, it was all too easy for the politicians to say: 'Oh, it's all those foreigners, it's all those Europeans, it's all those bureaucrats.' That reinforced the aggro in the system."
Lord Kerr, the former head of the Foreign Office, admits something deep has gone wrong in the UK relationship with Europe. "These Tories are not causing public opinion to move. They are reflecting a move in public opinion which people like me who are Euro-fanatical have to admit is real. There are the standard excuses we parade, like 'nobody speaks up for Europe, why do ministers always use Europe as an alibi, why is it always a zero-sum game where we win or we are ambushed by evil foreigners with stitch ups?"
But he says these are inadequate explanations. He argues: "I think we don't have a narrative about the EU in Britain. We had a single market narrative which we then followed by an enlargement narrative. Although probably the guy in the Dog and Duck wasn't awfully interested in the enlargement narrative, the political classes were on the whole. So it went quite well.
"For many Tories this turned into a call to widen rather than deepen Europe. People like me argued that's an analytical error, that the most enthusiastic deepeners will be the new member states, and we were three-quarters right. Now the enlargement justification has vanished because in the Dog and Duck, or at least in the Tory constituency office, the enlargement that has happened has meant 'all these horrible Latvians, Lithuanian and Polish people coming and taking our jobs'. So it is all mixed up with the immigration story.
"The idea of free movement of Turks and Balkans, people think: 'Come on, we have had enough of that already."
Matters have worsened with the failures of the euro. "If you go from 1999, when they kick the euro off, to late 2008, it is like the guy in the cartoon who has gone over the cliff and is still walking and hasn't looked down and hasn't yet fallen. I think we are all in that period. People had not noticed the design flaw."
Mandelson, of the four, has the most developed programme of reform, but the quartet all have views.
Mandelson contends: "The commission should be shrunk and some of its working methods merged with the European council to form a full governing board of all member states and a smaller executive committee of the EU rather as the European Central Bank organises itself.
"The European commission needs to see its job as protecting the integrity and the rules of the single market and therefore the interests of those outside the eurozone as much as those inside it. The commission needs to provide the essential bridge, the institutional bridge, between the ins and outs of the eurozone, you know, locking together the two overlapping spheres of the eurozone in a single market.
"We have to re-engage national parliamentarians in Brussels alongside the European parliament, not least because a lot of the policy areas which are so relevant to Europe's future economic success and competitiveness are domestic policy areas like education and industrial policy. And last of all I think we have to find a way of electing or getting some popular mandate for the personality who leads the EU's governance.
Brittan throws what he describes modestly as his little pebble into the debate about Europe's economic governance. He argues: "The real question about the fiscal pact – the successor to the stability pact – is enforceability. What happens if you don't observe it? A financial penalty is incredible in the most literal sense of the word because it only makes things worse. My view is that the penalty should be a total, or partial, temporary loss of voting rights. That would make people really think because the people who exercise the voting rights are not the people who suffer the financial penalties. The people who exercise the voting rights are the ministers. If you are a member of a country and you go into a council meeting and you are told: 'Sorry, null point, no vote because you are in breach of your treaty obligations in the fiscal pact," that would have a really powerful effect. It could be a temporary or partial loss of voting rights."
Heseltine admits to fault on both sides, including a deep British failure to recognise the influence it can still have in Brussels. He thinks that influence can be extended and sets out his own four-point plan.
Greater physical presence of more Brits in the commission; more frequent visits of ministers to fight our corner at early stages of the negotiating processes; a root-and-branch appraisal of the regulations to see that they are actually compliant with the directives and not gold plated; and a very tough line on the fact that Europe has not been able to sign its accounts.
Above all he feels Britain failed to anticipate that a later generation of German politicians would share their predecessors' determination to make the EU venture stay the course.
He recalls: "I had a very interesting conversation with Chancellor Kohl, and this would have been in the 80s, in which he said: 'You have to understand that I am the last generation of Germans who feel the need to make a success of this venture. There will come another generation who will take the view that we have created the most powerful economy in Europe. We have a relationship which is very much in Germans' interest. We don't need any longer to feel an obligation to go further and deeper.' Now Chancellor Merkel demonstrates quite clearly that Chancellor Kohl's view about how quickly German opinion could change was actually wrong because she has continued exactly in the tradition that all German leaders have followed since the war. Europe is going to survive, and we have to come to terms with that.
Kerr fears British influence may decline as changes to voting systems mean the eurozone can operate as a winning block. "So the Right Hon George Osborne MP will appear and read out a brilliant Treasury script on what should be done on the matters up for discussion at the EU finance ministers' meeting. People will look out the window and be very polite and say: 'That is jolly interesting, George thank you very much and now shall we vote.' That is what is going to happen."
"Then the European commission and the council will start looking like an ogre here, and what the Daily Mail says – which is not true now – about hostility to the Brits inside the institutions will start being true." Reported by guardian.co.uk 16 hours ago.
Continued austerity and falling living standards mean the European Union is facing a decade of further unpopularity and strains on its unity, requiring urgent reforms to survive, according to Lord Mandelson, the former EU commissioner.
He is one of a group of Britain's prominent pro-European grandees deeply aware that the Conservative leadership is as much reflecting as leading a shift away from Europe in British popular opinion, partly due to the euro's travails and partly due to a long-term ambiguity about the need for Europe.
This group, interviewed by the Guardian before David Cameron's landmark speech on Europe next month, may be united in their opposition to Cameron's negotiating tactics, and its diplomatic dangers, but they insist they are not complacent about the EU as an institution.
Mandelson's assessment is the most stark: "I think that the eurozone is on life support and that cures for its ills can be found eventually. I'm more worried about the politics of austerity Europe, the huge adjustment that Europe is going to have to make in the coming decade and beyond in terms of its financing and its living standards and the impact this is going to have on European unity and solidarity.
"Now this goes to the heart of the EU's political legitimacy because whether you are from an austerity member state or a bailout country, you are likely to be dissatisfied for a long time to come with the economic state of Europe and the price you are paying for Europe's indebtedness and its relative failure to generate the wealth it needs to pay for its high standard of living. That's going to have a negative political impact on how people regard the EU and its institutions and that's what we've got to understand and address. These raise real issues and challenges of political management and accountability of Europe's affairs. And we've got to pay as much attention to what needs to be done politically to repair Europe as we do economically and in the running of the eurozone. These are very deep questions for the EU's future and they're not going to be solved by a touch more austerity here or a further bailout there."
Lord Brittan, one of Mandelson's predecessor's as EU trade commissioner, also acknowledges "there has been a major shift in public opinion here about Europe". He says: "The Eurosceptics have had the public space to themselves to a greater extent than one would have wished. The pro-Europeans have been too content to win the actual decisions.
He says the situation may have come about under John Major. When he was prime minister "there was a group of people who were a minority, but his Commons majority was not sufficiently great for it to be in his interests to rub their noses in it too much. He had to win. The result of that was that the public space was filled in the way it was."
Lord Heseltine, possibly the most prominent pro-European voice in the Conservative party, attaches the strength of Euroscepticism to Britain's different wartime experience. In mainland Europe, he says, "men and women who had come out of the prisoner of war camps and the resistance movements felt deeply war must never happen again. Britain's position at that time was a very different one. First, we hadn't lost, we had won. Secondly, we had stood alone. Thirdly, we were the partners, as we perceived, of the United States of America. And fourthly we were the head of the greatest empire and commonwealth the world had ever seen. This was not a position from which you threw in your lot with people from a totally different psychological experience."
But he believes the poison really entered the British political system when Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act in 1986, creating a single market across Europe. He said this occurred at a time when "the economy at the end of the 80s went sour. It was a time when everybody was looking for alibis, escape clauses, someone to blame, and it coincided with the introduction to this place of hundreds of regulations in order to comply with the directives of Brussels. Well, this is a formula for political tension. And so a coalition of national press, plus the aggrieved industrial commercial world, turned the Brussels machine into a hate character and I think that was the huge turning point when the resentments became bitter and entrenched. Where I think there is a degree of political responsibility is that instead of explaining that this was the inevitable conclusion of creating a single market of hundreds of millions of people, it was all too easy for the politicians to say: 'Oh, it's all those foreigners, it's all those Europeans, it's all those bureaucrats.' That reinforced the aggro in the system."
Lord Kerr, the former head of the Foreign Office, admits something deep has gone wrong in the UK relationship with Europe. "These Tories are not causing public opinion to move. They are reflecting a move in public opinion which people like me who are Euro-fanatical have to admit is real. There are the standard excuses we parade, like 'nobody speaks up for Europe, why do ministers always use Europe as an alibi, why is it always a zero-sum game where we win or we are ambushed by evil foreigners with stitch ups?"
But he says these are inadequate explanations. He argues: "I think we don't have a narrative about the EU in Britain. We had a single market narrative which we then followed by an enlargement narrative. Although probably the guy in the Dog and Duck wasn't awfully interested in the enlargement narrative, the political classes were on the whole. So it went quite well.
"For many Tories this turned into a call to widen rather than deepen Europe. People like me argued that's an analytical error, that the most enthusiastic deepeners will be the new member states, and we were three-quarters right. Now the enlargement justification has vanished because in the Dog and Duck, or at least in the Tory constituency office, the enlargement that has happened has meant 'all these horrible Latvians, Lithuanian and Polish people coming and taking our jobs'. So it is all mixed up with the immigration story.
"The idea of free movement of Turks and Balkans, people think: 'Come on, we have had enough of that already."
Matters have worsened with the failures of the euro. "If you go from 1999, when they kick the euro off, to late 2008, it is like the guy in the cartoon who has gone over the cliff and is still walking and hasn't looked down and hasn't yet fallen. I think we are all in that period. People had not noticed the design flaw."
Mandelson, of the four, has the most developed programme of reform, but the quartet all have views.
Mandelson contends: "The commission should be shrunk and some of its working methods merged with the European council to form a full governing board of all member states and a smaller executive committee of the EU rather as the European Central Bank organises itself.
"The European commission needs to see its job as protecting the integrity and the rules of the single market and therefore the interests of those outside the eurozone as much as those inside it. The commission needs to provide the essential bridge, the institutional bridge, between the ins and outs of the eurozone, you know, locking together the two overlapping spheres of the eurozone in a single market.
"We have to re-engage national parliamentarians in Brussels alongside the European parliament, not least because a lot of the policy areas which are so relevant to Europe's future economic success and competitiveness are domestic policy areas like education and industrial policy. And last of all I think we have to find a way of electing or getting some popular mandate for the personality who leads the EU's governance.
Brittan throws what he describes modestly as his little pebble into the debate about Europe's economic governance. He argues: "The real question about the fiscal pact – the successor to the stability pact – is enforceability. What happens if you don't observe it? A financial penalty is incredible in the most literal sense of the word because it only makes things worse. My view is that the penalty should be a total, or partial, temporary loss of voting rights. That would make people really think because the people who exercise the voting rights are not the people who suffer the financial penalties. The people who exercise the voting rights are the ministers. If you are a member of a country and you go into a council meeting and you are told: 'Sorry, null point, no vote because you are in breach of your treaty obligations in the fiscal pact," that would have a really powerful effect. It could be a temporary or partial loss of voting rights."
Heseltine admits to fault on both sides, including a deep British failure to recognise the influence it can still have in Brussels. He thinks that influence can be extended and sets out his own four-point plan.
Greater physical presence of more Brits in the commission; more frequent visits of ministers to fight our corner at early stages of the negotiating processes; a root-and-branch appraisal of the regulations to see that they are actually compliant with the directives and not gold plated; and a very tough line on the fact that Europe has not been able to sign its accounts.
Above all he feels Britain failed to anticipate that a later generation of German politicians would share their predecessors' determination to make the EU venture stay the course.
He recalls: "I had a very interesting conversation with Chancellor Kohl, and this would have been in the 80s, in which he said: 'You have to understand that I am the last generation of Germans who feel the need to make a success of this venture. There will come another generation who will take the view that we have created the most powerful economy in Europe. We have a relationship which is very much in Germans' interest. We don't need any longer to feel an obligation to go further and deeper.' Now Chancellor Merkel demonstrates quite clearly that Chancellor Kohl's view about how quickly German opinion could change was actually wrong because she has continued exactly in the tradition that all German leaders have followed since the war. Europe is going to survive, and we have to come to terms with that.
Kerr fears British influence may decline as changes to voting systems mean the eurozone can operate as a winning block. "So the Right Hon George Osborne MP will appear and read out a brilliant Treasury script on what should be done on the matters up for discussion at the EU finance ministers' meeting. People will look out the window and be very polite and say: 'That is jolly interesting, George thank you very much and now shall we vote.' That is what is going to happen."
"Then the European commission and the council will start looking like an ogre here, and what the Daily Mail says – which is not true now – about hostility to the Brits inside the institutions will start being true." Reported by guardian.co.uk 16 hours ago.
↧
↧
EU veterans explain their hopes for PM's landmark speech on Europe
Lord Heseltine, Lord Mandelson and others who have helped define Britain's relationship with the EU evaluate the task ahead
A bumpy journey in which Britain initially spurned moves towards European integration finally ended in, of all places, Los Angeles.
Lord Heseltine recalls with great pride how he became the first minister to hail the UK's landmark decision to join the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973 – 40 years ago on Tuesday – in a speech on the US west coast.
The man who would later bring down Margaret Thatcher, in part over Europe, set out the creed that all pro-Europeans have since followed. Britain must be "a leading European influencer as opposed to being at the margin", the former deputy prime minister tells the Guardian.
Heseltine is one of a series of grandees who have spoken to the Guardian for the final day of a three-part series marking the 40th anniversary of Britain's accession. The five peers all agree that Britain has immeasurably improved its standing in the world by taking a seat at the top table of the world's largest trading bloc.
But they also acknowledge that a rising tide of Euroscepticism – with a slim majority of voters in this week's Guardian/ICM poll![ext]()
favouring withdrawal – means that Britain is now reaching a crossroads in its membership. They look forward, some in hope and others with dread, to David Cameron's long-awaited speech on the EU in the new year in which the prime minister will set out his plans to reconfigure Britain's relationship within the EU.
Lord Powell of Bayswater, Thatcher's long-serving principal foreign policy adviser, believes Britain should be able to excuse itself from some of the social obligations it originally spurned in the Maastricht treaty. Cameron is widely expected to call for the repatriation of social and employment laws as the price of British support for a major revision of the Lisbon treaty to underpin new governance arrangements for the eurozone. This would then be put to a referendum as part of a strategy dismissed in the Guardian by the European council's president, Herman Van Rompuy![ext]()
.
Powell says: "It's always seemed to me that we should be able to avoid that in-or-out choice, that we should rightly be looking for an adjusted relationship with Europe in which we don't have to do a lot of things but should be broadly satisfied with what we've agreed to up to date. I think we should be able to turn back some of the social regulation and that side of things."
Powell, who wrote Thatcher's famous Bruges speech in 1988 in which she warned of the dangers of concentrating "power at the centre of a European conglomerate", believes Cameron would do well to follow her example. But he should examine the speech as delivered, in which Thatcher declared Britain "does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European community", rather than the version spun over the decades.
Powell says: "The Bruges speech did set out a rather credible alternative vision for Europe which involved us being good members that wanted to push back on excessive interference in the affairs of nation states, wanted to emphasise things like enlargement in Europe, the importance of the transatlantic relationship, the importance of deregulation in the market." The crossbencher calls on critics to acknowledge the political pressures on Cameron. "There is now this sort of tidal wave in the Tory party in parliament [on Europe] which is a new phenomenon and obviously makes it much more difficult in management terms for David Cameron to handle the debate and the issues," he says.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, Thatcher's former home secretary, who served as European commissioner for trade in the 1990s, has some sympathy for Cameron. "He does have a difficult task. There is no doubt about that."
But Brittan, who agreed with John Major's decision to secure an opt-out from the social chapter in the 1991 Maastricht treaty, believes Cameron would be wrong to overplay his hand in treaty negotiations by demanding repatriation of powers in exchange for supporting new eurozone structures. "That is only an offer if, without the offer, they wouldn't be able to," he says, recalling how France and Germany forced through the eurozone's fiscal compact last year without UK support by bypassing the EU.
Brittan notched up a record as Britain's longest-serving European commissioner between 1989 and 1999, while Lord Kerr of Kinlochard became one of Britain's legendary permanent representatives to the EU. The chain-smoking Scot, who served in Brussels from 1990 to 1995, earned a place in EU folklore when he crouched under the table during the Maastricht treaty negotiations to advise John Major on the finer details.
Kerr may have spent 36 years as a diplomat but he is utterly dismissive of the prime minister's strategy, which could, he fears, see Britain tumbling out of the EU by accident. He believes a host of EU countries will be wary of repatriating powers to Britain because they do not want to give Britain a competitive advantage in the single market. "That is where it starts getting really nasty," he says. "If you're in the eurozone you are persuaded that you need to change the treaty. Then the Brits say: 'Hang on, we are only prepared to agree provided you agree that we are going to make our motor cars much cheaper.'
"That is when it gets really horrible as they are all already completely pissed off with the Brits for our tone of voice, for all the shouting we have done at the eurozone: 'For Christ's sake get a big bazooka. And you need to do all these things now. And why are you so pathetic?" So it seems to me the idea that we can block their doing what they think is necessary to prop up the euro, given that we have been shouting at them for three years until they agree to give us something, is a bit implausible. It sounds more like bust-up time."
Lord Mandelson, the former business secretary and European commissioner, shares some of Kerr's concerns. He believes Britain's national interest lies in stabilising the eurozone and ensuring its new governance arrangements do not jeopardise Britain's position within the single market. This, he argues, is more important than repatriating powers, which he dismissed as "pointing a gun at everyone else's heads".
"The reason why the current trajectory of Conservative party thinking is so damaging to our national interest is because it is designed to present weak arguments, unconvincingly, to people who do not see the sense of those arguments and certainly wouldn't align themselves with Britain in pursuing them … A so-called repatriation of powers is about staying in Europe but coming out of the EU simultaneously. It doesn't work, it doesn't add up and nobody's going to buy it on the continent.
"The risk is that [the prime minister] will simply impale himself on an impossible negotiating position that will not achieve the results that he wants and will inevitably disappoint his party and trigger even more opposition to himself in his own ranks."
Mandelson believes Cameron is underestimating the patience of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who is keen for Britain to remain one of the key members of the EU.
Mats Persson, the Swedish director of the pro-reform EU thinktank Open Europe, believes Britain can win concessions, though he says it needs to be careful with Germany. "Berlin has two demands. The first is don't park your truck in front of the fire exit – don't block further eurozone integration. The second one is don't mess with the single market."
Mandelson says every political party has struggled with European integration. He cites his grandfather, Herbert Morrison, deputy prime minister in Clement Attlee's postwar Labour government, who vetoed British membership of the European Coal and Steel Community, the forerunner of the EU. "It's a great idea but I don't think the Durham miners would wear it," Mandelson quotes his grandfather as saying when he was summoned from the Ivy restaurant in 1951 to decide whether Britain should join.
It took a further 10 years for Harold Macmillan, in the wake of his "wind of change" speech, to apply to join the EEC. Mandelson says the prevailing view was that Britain was joining a "United Markets of Europe" rather than a "United States of Europe".
Heseltine describes Macmillan as the "great architect of Britain's position in Europe" who sought to return Britain to its rightful place as a European power. But he disagrees with Mandelson's contention that Britain thought it was just joining a trading bloc.
"The Schuman plan [by the French foreign minister in 1950] which preceded the treaty of Rome was all about harnessing the war-making industries into a common accord so that the Europeans couldn't do the thing they were always doing otherwise, which is slaughtering each other. So bringing the iron, coal and steel industries under one collective arrangement was a massive step towards preventing war; it wasn't a kind of an economic decision."
Heseltine's argument is important because it answers one of the main criticisms of those who favour withdrawal. This is that voters endorsed a common market, not a political European Union, in the 1975 referendum.
Lord Liddle, Tony Blair's former EU adviser, who is writing a book on Britain's "Europe dilemma", believes the Conservatives were initially the most pro-European party. But he says of the party now: "They feel Europe is holding Britain back and they have a vision of Britain as an offshore deregulated tax haven which would be a pole for free enterprise in this global race."
Heseltine acknowledges the British have had a "totally different psychological experience" to those on the continent. But he said that even Thatcher, the "most Eurosceptic of modern politicians", discovered a truth when she drove through the Single European Act, establishing the single market.
"Margaret realised that Europe is about dealing. It's about relationships. It's about fighting your corner and forming partnerships and alliances. It is a very obvious piece of political sharing in which you have to give a little to take a little."
Heseltine has a warning for the likes of Dan Hannan, the Conservative MEP who would like Britain to withdraw from the EU and follow the example of Switzerland, which negotiates access to the single market. Thatcher, once again, should be the guide.
"Faced with the prospect of a Europe harmonising and rationalising hundreds of industrial standards, it was quite apparent to her that Britain had got to be actively, positively engaged at the conference table," he says. "Otherwise the Europeans would do in industrial terms what they had done in agricultural terms, which is to fix the rules their way."
Heseltine, a successful businessman who had minted his fortune before entering the Commons in 1966, paused. He then added: "I would have done that if I'd been them." Reported by guardian.co.uk 16 hours ago.
A bumpy journey in which Britain initially spurned moves towards European integration finally ended in, of all places, Los Angeles.
Lord Heseltine recalls with great pride how he became the first minister to hail the UK's landmark decision to join the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973 – 40 years ago on Tuesday – in a speech on the US west coast.
The man who would later bring down Margaret Thatcher, in part over Europe, set out the creed that all pro-Europeans have since followed. Britain must be "a leading European influencer as opposed to being at the margin", the former deputy prime minister tells the Guardian.
Heseltine is one of a series of grandees who have spoken to the Guardian for the final day of a three-part series marking the 40th anniversary of Britain's accession. The five peers all agree that Britain has immeasurably improved its standing in the world by taking a seat at the top table of the world's largest trading bloc.
But they also acknowledge that a rising tide of Euroscepticism – with a slim majority of voters in this week's Guardian/ICM poll
favouring withdrawal – means that Britain is now reaching a crossroads in its membership. They look forward, some in hope and others with dread, to David Cameron's long-awaited speech on the EU in the new year in which the prime minister will set out his plans to reconfigure Britain's relationship within the EU.Lord Powell of Bayswater, Thatcher's long-serving principal foreign policy adviser, believes Britain should be able to excuse itself from some of the social obligations it originally spurned in the Maastricht treaty. Cameron is widely expected to call for the repatriation of social and employment laws as the price of British support for a major revision of the Lisbon treaty to underpin new governance arrangements for the eurozone. This would then be put to a referendum as part of a strategy dismissed in the Guardian by the European council's president, Herman Van Rompuy
.Powell says: "It's always seemed to me that we should be able to avoid that in-or-out choice, that we should rightly be looking for an adjusted relationship with Europe in which we don't have to do a lot of things but should be broadly satisfied with what we've agreed to up to date. I think we should be able to turn back some of the social regulation and that side of things."
Powell, who wrote Thatcher's famous Bruges speech in 1988 in which she warned of the dangers of concentrating "power at the centre of a European conglomerate", believes Cameron would do well to follow her example. But he should examine the speech as delivered, in which Thatcher declared Britain "does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European community", rather than the version spun over the decades.
Powell says: "The Bruges speech did set out a rather credible alternative vision for Europe which involved us being good members that wanted to push back on excessive interference in the affairs of nation states, wanted to emphasise things like enlargement in Europe, the importance of the transatlantic relationship, the importance of deregulation in the market." The crossbencher calls on critics to acknowledge the political pressures on Cameron. "There is now this sort of tidal wave in the Tory party in parliament [on Europe] which is a new phenomenon and obviously makes it much more difficult in management terms for David Cameron to handle the debate and the issues," he says.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, Thatcher's former home secretary, who served as European commissioner for trade in the 1990s, has some sympathy for Cameron. "He does have a difficult task. There is no doubt about that."
But Brittan, who agreed with John Major's decision to secure an opt-out from the social chapter in the 1991 Maastricht treaty, believes Cameron would be wrong to overplay his hand in treaty negotiations by demanding repatriation of powers in exchange for supporting new eurozone structures. "That is only an offer if, without the offer, they wouldn't be able to," he says, recalling how France and Germany forced through the eurozone's fiscal compact last year without UK support by bypassing the EU.
Brittan notched up a record as Britain's longest-serving European commissioner between 1989 and 1999, while Lord Kerr of Kinlochard became one of Britain's legendary permanent representatives to the EU. The chain-smoking Scot, who served in Brussels from 1990 to 1995, earned a place in EU folklore when he crouched under the table during the Maastricht treaty negotiations to advise John Major on the finer details.
Kerr may have spent 36 years as a diplomat but he is utterly dismissive of the prime minister's strategy, which could, he fears, see Britain tumbling out of the EU by accident. He believes a host of EU countries will be wary of repatriating powers to Britain because they do not want to give Britain a competitive advantage in the single market. "That is where it starts getting really nasty," he says. "If you're in the eurozone you are persuaded that you need to change the treaty. Then the Brits say: 'Hang on, we are only prepared to agree provided you agree that we are going to make our motor cars much cheaper.'
"That is when it gets really horrible as they are all already completely pissed off with the Brits for our tone of voice, for all the shouting we have done at the eurozone: 'For Christ's sake get a big bazooka. And you need to do all these things now. And why are you so pathetic?" So it seems to me the idea that we can block their doing what they think is necessary to prop up the euro, given that we have been shouting at them for three years until they agree to give us something, is a bit implausible. It sounds more like bust-up time."
Lord Mandelson, the former business secretary and European commissioner, shares some of Kerr's concerns. He believes Britain's national interest lies in stabilising the eurozone and ensuring its new governance arrangements do not jeopardise Britain's position within the single market. This, he argues, is more important than repatriating powers, which he dismissed as "pointing a gun at everyone else's heads".
"The reason why the current trajectory of Conservative party thinking is so damaging to our national interest is because it is designed to present weak arguments, unconvincingly, to people who do not see the sense of those arguments and certainly wouldn't align themselves with Britain in pursuing them … A so-called repatriation of powers is about staying in Europe but coming out of the EU simultaneously. It doesn't work, it doesn't add up and nobody's going to buy it on the continent.
"The risk is that [the prime minister] will simply impale himself on an impossible negotiating position that will not achieve the results that he wants and will inevitably disappoint his party and trigger even more opposition to himself in his own ranks."
Mandelson believes Cameron is underestimating the patience of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who is keen for Britain to remain one of the key members of the EU.
Mats Persson, the Swedish director of the pro-reform EU thinktank Open Europe, believes Britain can win concessions, though he says it needs to be careful with Germany. "Berlin has two demands. The first is don't park your truck in front of the fire exit – don't block further eurozone integration. The second one is don't mess with the single market."
Mandelson says every political party has struggled with European integration. He cites his grandfather, Herbert Morrison, deputy prime minister in Clement Attlee's postwar Labour government, who vetoed British membership of the European Coal and Steel Community, the forerunner of the EU. "It's a great idea but I don't think the Durham miners would wear it," Mandelson quotes his grandfather as saying when he was summoned from the Ivy restaurant in 1951 to decide whether Britain should join.
It took a further 10 years for Harold Macmillan, in the wake of his "wind of change" speech, to apply to join the EEC. Mandelson says the prevailing view was that Britain was joining a "United Markets of Europe" rather than a "United States of Europe".
Heseltine describes Macmillan as the "great architect of Britain's position in Europe" who sought to return Britain to its rightful place as a European power. But he disagrees with Mandelson's contention that Britain thought it was just joining a trading bloc.
"The Schuman plan [by the French foreign minister in 1950] which preceded the treaty of Rome was all about harnessing the war-making industries into a common accord so that the Europeans couldn't do the thing they were always doing otherwise, which is slaughtering each other. So bringing the iron, coal and steel industries under one collective arrangement was a massive step towards preventing war; it wasn't a kind of an economic decision."
Heseltine's argument is important because it answers one of the main criticisms of those who favour withdrawal. This is that voters endorsed a common market, not a political European Union, in the 1975 referendum.
Lord Liddle, Tony Blair's former EU adviser, who is writing a book on Britain's "Europe dilemma", believes the Conservatives were initially the most pro-European party. But he says of the party now: "They feel Europe is holding Britain back and they have a vision of Britain as an offshore deregulated tax haven which would be a pole for free enterprise in this global race."
Heseltine acknowledges the British have had a "totally different psychological experience" to those on the continent. But he said that even Thatcher, the "most Eurosceptic of modern politicians", discovered a truth when she drove through the Single European Act, establishing the single market.
"Margaret realised that Europe is about dealing. It's about relationships. It's about fighting your corner and forming partnerships and alliances. It is a very obvious piece of political sharing in which you have to give a little to take a little."
Heseltine has a warning for the likes of Dan Hannan, the Conservative MEP who would like Britain to withdraw from the EU and follow the example of Switzerland, which negotiates access to the single market. Thatcher, once again, should be the guide.
"Faced with the prospect of a Europe harmonising and rationalising hundreds of industrial standards, it was quite apparent to her that Britain had got to be actively, positively engaged at the conference table," he says. "Otherwise the Europeans would do in industrial terms what they had done in agricultural terms, which is to fix the rules their way."
Heseltine, a successful businessman who had minted his fortune before entering the Commons in 1966, paused. He then added: "I would have done that if I'd been them." Reported by guardian.co.uk 16 hours ago.
↧
2012: A remarkable sporting year – Ian Poulter on Europe's Ryder Cup
'The USA crowds went quiet. Europe had pulled off the unthinkable. It was amazing to be part of history'
**30 September**
* *
It has been a few months since the Ryder Cup and it is honestly only recently that what we achieved as a European team has sunk in.
What has struck me most has been the reaction of people all over the world who were spellbound by the golf; for all the people involved, not only me, we have been blown away by the reception in Asia, Australia. It keeps surprising me how many people the Ryder Cup touched and how our success had so many people transfixed.
At the start of the week, the setup of the course was a big part of our discussion. The way it was set up was a slight surprise to us, they had chopped the rough right back so you could get to the greens from virtually any position. We chatted a lot about that.
As the gun went off, we all struggled to play to our capabilities. By Friday night we were being well beaten, the mood was down, all the chants were for the USA. We were being comfortably played off the pitch; it was hard to take.
José María Olazábal is one of the most passionate captains you will ever see. José was very emotional, he had been speaking about Seve Ballesteros all week, so it was tough for him and not made any easier by the way Friday went.
Saturday didn't start well at all. It was tough, listening to the USA chants, seeing that look in Keegan Bradley's eye, how excited Phil Mickelson was, how Bubba Watson and Webb Simpson were revelling in their first Ryder Cup. It was more and more intimidating for us.
Saturday afternoon was originally about damage limitation, our pride meant we wanted to avoid a hiding. We were 10-4 down, for Rory McIlroy and I things weren't happening on the course. We couldn't get going.
We took hope from what Sergio García and Luke Donald did in front of us. It was 10-5, we knew taking it to 10-6 might afford us some momentum. At 10-4, the American psyche would have been that they had two hands on the Ryder Cup.
I went back into the team room, having won our match, to find 11 team‑mates, the captain, vice-captains, physios singing. It didn't look like we were four points down. It felt like we were at least all square. Even guys who hadn't won a point seemed to have a major morale boost. There was an emotion swing.
As soon as the team sheet for Sunday was released, we spoke through all of the matches and felt we could win them all. We loved what we were seeing.
When I saw early blue colours beside the first five matches, I felt positive, but calm. The more the day went on, there was this realisation that we were about to pull off something special. For a spell, the Americans clawed back three of the crucial games in the middle of the draw but within 20 minutes it was back in our favour. The crowds went quiet.
There was a helpless feeling after my match was finished. I was left watching with José, Darren Clarke, Paul Lawrie and the other guys who had finished their matches.
The only time I felt really nervous was for Martin Kaymer's last putt. When Martin knocked it to 25ft at the last, I actually said it was all over, that we were home and dry. Then we watched Martin's putt go 6ft past, almost in slow motion. But I felt Martin had it in him to hole the putt, he had holed big ones on 16 and 17. It was uphill, slightly left to right and he poured it into the middle.
I then sampled the most amazing emotion ever on a golf course. The bit that really struck me was José, who was gripped with emotion. I saw first-hand exactly what it meant to him to win the Ryder Cup. It was then almost as if Seve had said something to him; to go over to Francesco Molinari and tell him to win the 18th. I saw a light flicker in José's mind and he went straight for Francesco. Seve would have wanted to win the cup outright.
You then had pure adrenaline. We had pulled off the unthinkable, something that is extra special when you are part of a team. It was amazing to be part of history.
Everyone had written us off. Even some of us didn't believe at one point we could do it, but we did. José said something special to every one of us, which will stay with us for a lifetime.* * Reported by guardian.co.uk 12 hours ago.
**30 September**
* *
It has been a few months since the Ryder Cup and it is honestly only recently that what we achieved as a European team has sunk in.
What has struck me most has been the reaction of people all over the world who were spellbound by the golf; for all the people involved, not only me, we have been blown away by the reception in Asia, Australia. It keeps surprising me how many people the Ryder Cup touched and how our success had so many people transfixed.
At the start of the week, the setup of the course was a big part of our discussion. The way it was set up was a slight surprise to us, they had chopped the rough right back so you could get to the greens from virtually any position. We chatted a lot about that.
As the gun went off, we all struggled to play to our capabilities. By Friday night we were being well beaten, the mood was down, all the chants were for the USA. We were being comfortably played off the pitch; it was hard to take.
José María Olazábal is one of the most passionate captains you will ever see. José was very emotional, he had been speaking about Seve Ballesteros all week, so it was tough for him and not made any easier by the way Friday went.
Saturday didn't start well at all. It was tough, listening to the USA chants, seeing that look in Keegan Bradley's eye, how excited Phil Mickelson was, how Bubba Watson and Webb Simpson were revelling in their first Ryder Cup. It was more and more intimidating for us.
Saturday afternoon was originally about damage limitation, our pride meant we wanted to avoid a hiding. We were 10-4 down, for Rory McIlroy and I things weren't happening on the course. We couldn't get going.
We took hope from what Sergio García and Luke Donald did in front of us. It was 10-5, we knew taking it to 10-6 might afford us some momentum. At 10-4, the American psyche would have been that they had two hands on the Ryder Cup.
I went back into the team room, having won our match, to find 11 team‑mates, the captain, vice-captains, physios singing. It didn't look like we were four points down. It felt like we were at least all square. Even guys who hadn't won a point seemed to have a major morale boost. There was an emotion swing.
As soon as the team sheet for Sunday was released, we spoke through all of the matches and felt we could win them all. We loved what we were seeing.
When I saw early blue colours beside the first five matches, I felt positive, but calm. The more the day went on, there was this realisation that we were about to pull off something special. For a spell, the Americans clawed back three of the crucial games in the middle of the draw but within 20 minutes it was back in our favour. The crowds went quiet.
There was a helpless feeling after my match was finished. I was left watching with José, Darren Clarke, Paul Lawrie and the other guys who had finished their matches.
The only time I felt really nervous was for Martin Kaymer's last putt. When Martin knocked it to 25ft at the last, I actually said it was all over, that we were home and dry. Then we watched Martin's putt go 6ft past, almost in slow motion. But I felt Martin had it in him to hole the putt, he had holed big ones on 16 and 17. It was uphill, slightly left to right and he poured it into the middle.
I then sampled the most amazing emotion ever on a golf course. The bit that really struck me was José, who was gripped with emotion. I saw first-hand exactly what it meant to him to win the Ryder Cup. It was then almost as if Seve had said something to him; to go over to Francesco Molinari and tell him to win the 18th. I saw a light flicker in José's mind and he went straight for Francesco. Seve would have wanted to win the cup outright.
You then had pure adrenaline. We had pulled off the unthinkable, something that is extra special when you are part of a team. It was amazing to be part of history.
Everyone had written us off. Even some of us didn't believe at one point we could do it, but we did. José said something special to every one of us, which will stay with us for a lifetime.* * Reported by guardian.co.uk 12 hours ago.
↧
Stoke can pull off Europa return says Tony Pulis
TONY PULIS has set his sights on reaching Europe again this term.
Reported by Daily Star 8 hours ago.
↧
Reggae festival to bring One Love to Havering next year
Essex --
THE biggest reggae festival in the country is set to call Havering its home for the next five years.
The One Love Festival is set to be held at Damyns Hall Aerodrome, Upminster between August 16 and 18 next year.
The 122 acre picturesque green field site will feature around 100 artists, including Ijahman Levi , David Rodigan, Sister Nancy, Congo Natty and General Levy.
Organisers believe that up to 5,000 reggae fans could descend on the site for the three day festival of music, film, and food.
There will be one main stage, four marquees, various food stalls selling food from around the world and a children's area.
The festival, now in its sixth year, started in Hainault before moving for one year to Kent, after which the decision was made to move to Havering.
Organiser Dan Wiltshire said: "We are delighted to be here. It's a brilliant site. We can make it our own.
"It's a fantastic festival and it is the nicest, most chilled out festival you can think of.
"We are very community based and the people come back every year. It's going to be great."
Created in 2008 for the UKs 30th anniversary of Bob Marley's famous concert of the same name. The One Love Festival is the UK's number one reggae and dub camping festival.
A spokesman said: "Throughout the last six years we had some amazing One Love Festival highlights and they keep on getting better and better.
"The festival means such a lot to so many people in such different ways – everyone leaves the event experiencing their own exceptional One Love Festival moment and memory.
"We have established a wonderful growing customer base of fun, loving, happy and loyal fans from all over Europe and beyond.
"Each year the festival grows organically both in production and vision – but still keeping to the original vibe of a intimate fun and friendly event." Reported by This is 6 hours ago.
THE biggest reggae festival in the country is set to call Havering its home for the next five years.
The One Love Festival is set to be held at Damyns Hall Aerodrome, Upminster between August 16 and 18 next year.
The 122 acre picturesque green field site will feature around 100 artists, including Ijahman Levi , David Rodigan, Sister Nancy, Congo Natty and General Levy.
Organisers believe that up to 5,000 reggae fans could descend on the site for the three day festival of music, film, and food.
There will be one main stage, four marquees, various food stalls selling food from around the world and a children's area.
The festival, now in its sixth year, started in Hainault before moving for one year to Kent, after which the decision was made to move to Havering.
Organiser Dan Wiltshire said: "We are delighted to be here. It's a brilliant site. We can make it our own.
"It's a fantastic festival and it is the nicest, most chilled out festival you can think of.
"We are very community based and the people come back every year. It's going to be great."
Created in 2008 for the UKs 30th anniversary of Bob Marley's famous concert of the same name. The One Love Festival is the UK's number one reggae and dub camping festival.
A spokesman said: "Throughout the last six years we had some amazing One Love Festival highlights and they keep on getting better and better.
"The festival means such a lot to so many people in such different ways – everyone leaves the event experiencing their own exceptional One Love Festival moment and memory.
"We have established a wonderful growing customer base of fun, loving, happy and loyal fans from all over Europe and beyond.
"Each year the festival grows organically both in production and vision – but still keeping to the original vibe of a intimate fun and friendly event." Reported by This is 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
Top 12 cars of 2012: Renault Clio
Crucial new supermini for Renault delivered when it mattered most
Just when Renault most needs a star performer, it seems to have produced one. The French firm has been having a hard time selling cars across Europe, challenged for every sale by a pincer movement from VW and Hyundai-Kia. Its model range lost so much momentum in the UK last year that at the beginning of 2012 it killed all but four of the models it sells here, awaiting better cars to sell.
The big fightback begins next February, when the new-shape Renault Clio![ext]()
goes on sale. The car – longer, wider, lower and 100kg lighter than its predecessor – is based on the well-proven running gear of the outgoing Clio, but features new and much more characterful interior and exterior designs by a team led by Laurens van den Acker, the ex-Mazda design boss appointed by Renault in 2009.
The big news for more basic models is a brand-new 89bhp, 898cc, three-cylinder turbo engine. There’s still a normally aspirated 1.2-litre four for entry-level models and the familiar 1.5-litre turbodiesel is offered again. There’s also a semi-sporting 1.2-litre GT petrol turbo model coming to fill the gap to a new 197bhp Renaultsport![ext]()
model.
There’s no doubting that the new Clio looks great. We tested the Clio TCE 90, powered by the new triple, and it looked even better than you see in many photographs: fresh, modern and distinctive. Same goes for the interior. The fascia is dominated by its seven-inch touchscreen. This is the first mainstream Renault to get the new R-link infotainment system and it adds much to the car’s appeal.
On the road, the new Clio instantly feels mature, because road noise is low and it seems more composed over low-speed jitters than before. But it is more agile, too, because the rack and pinion steering has quicker gearing, the suspension has been re-rated and the car is lighter. Faults? It floats a bit more than we expected at high speeds (is this the return of ‘funny’ French suspension?). And we were surprised that the free-spinning three-cylinder engine wasn’t just a little more tractable, given the fact that its rapidly expanding retinue of three-pot rivals usually are.
Still, the Clio is a great little car again, engaging inside and out, and ready to lead a French fightback. It has much work to do. Reported by Autocar 4 hours ago.
Just when Renault most needs a star performer, it seems to have produced one. The French firm has been having a hard time selling cars across Europe, challenged for every sale by a pincer movement from VW and Hyundai-Kia. Its model range lost so much momentum in the UK last year that at the beginning of 2012 it killed all but four of the models it sells here, awaiting better cars to sell.
The big fightback begins next February, when the new-shape Renault Clio
goes on sale. The car – longer, wider, lower and 100kg lighter than its predecessor – is based on the well-proven running gear of the outgoing Clio, but features new and much more characterful interior and exterior designs by a team led by Laurens van den Acker, the ex-Mazda design boss appointed by Renault in 2009.The big news for more basic models is a brand-new 89bhp, 898cc, three-cylinder turbo engine. There’s still a normally aspirated 1.2-litre four for entry-level models and the familiar 1.5-litre turbodiesel is offered again. There’s also a semi-sporting 1.2-litre GT petrol turbo model coming to fill the gap to a new 197bhp Renaultsport
model.There’s no doubting that the new Clio looks great. We tested the Clio TCE 90, powered by the new triple, and it looked even better than you see in many photographs: fresh, modern and distinctive. Same goes for the interior. The fascia is dominated by its seven-inch touchscreen. This is the first mainstream Renault to get the new R-link infotainment system and it adds much to the car’s appeal.
On the road, the new Clio instantly feels mature, because road noise is low and it seems more composed over low-speed jitters than before. But it is more agile, too, because the rack and pinion steering has quicker gearing, the suspension has been re-rated and the car is lighter. Faults? It floats a bit more than we expected at high speeds (is this the return of ‘funny’ French suspension?). And we were surprised that the free-spinning three-cylinder engine wasn’t just a little more tractable, given the fact that its rapidly expanding retinue of three-pot rivals usually are.
Still, the Clio is a great little car again, engaging inside and out, and ready to lead a French fightback. It has much work to do. Reported by Autocar 4 hours ago.
↧
We are being let down as the price of lamb continues to fall
Somerset --
I am delighted that at last we appear to have a ministerial team at Defra which understands the farming industry and appreciates the huge number of major challenges under which farmers are currently operating.
It's also encouraging, amid all the positive signs that a start is at last being made on sweeping away pointless bureaucracy, that something of a shake-up is on the way for Natural England, which has been responsible for creating so many difficulties for so many farmers I know. But Natural England is not the only organisation which needs to be shaken: so, too, does EBLEX, which purports to be promoting English beef and lamb with the aid of the handsome levies it extracts from British farmers.
EBLEX clearly has a problem in that it is trying to serve two masters: farmers on the one hand and meat processors and the rest of the supply chain on the other. And currently it seems to be working more in the interests of the meat trade.
At a time of the year when we could hope to see some welcome extra income in the livestock sector the lamb market has been in meltdown, with prices collapsing by more than £20 a head in recent weeks. This is partly because the European market – where times are if anything tougher than they are here – has slumped. The vigorous demand we saw for British lamb for most of last year has suddenly tailed off, despite a more or less favourable exchange rate. Compounding the problem has been the reappearance of New Zealand lamb, now being widely sold in supermarkets.
But Europe isn't the world. Where, more to the point, is the branding for South West Beef and Lamb, which farmers fought so hard for but which the meat trade and the supermarkets fought so vigorously against?
Nowhere to be seen. And that's precisely how the meat trade likes it. No local branding, no premium prices to pay.
All we see from EBLEX is an endless stream of directives telling us how to improve our businesses. We don't need any of them. It is in our interests to run our businesses as efficiently as we possibly can. We can produce the goods quite adequately without any input from expensive 'advisors': all EBLEX has to do is promote them. Perhaps 2013 will be the year it finally discovers there is life beyond Europe. Reported by This is 3 hours ago.
I am delighted that at last we appear to have a ministerial team at Defra which understands the farming industry and appreciates the huge number of major challenges under which farmers are currently operating.
It's also encouraging, amid all the positive signs that a start is at last being made on sweeping away pointless bureaucracy, that something of a shake-up is on the way for Natural England, which has been responsible for creating so many difficulties for so many farmers I know. But Natural England is not the only organisation which needs to be shaken: so, too, does EBLEX, which purports to be promoting English beef and lamb with the aid of the handsome levies it extracts from British farmers.
EBLEX clearly has a problem in that it is trying to serve two masters: farmers on the one hand and meat processors and the rest of the supply chain on the other. And currently it seems to be working more in the interests of the meat trade.
At a time of the year when we could hope to see some welcome extra income in the livestock sector the lamb market has been in meltdown, with prices collapsing by more than £20 a head in recent weeks. This is partly because the European market – where times are if anything tougher than they are here – has slumped. The vigorous demand we saw for British lamb for most of last year has suddenly tailed off, despite a more or less favourable exchange rate. Compounding the problem has been the reappearance of New Zealand lamb, now being widely sold in supermarkets.
But Europe isn't the world. Where, more to the point, is the branding for South West Beef and Lamb, which farmers fought so hard for but which the meat trade and the supermarkets fought so vigorously against?
Nowhere to be seen. And that's precisely how the meat trade likes it. No local branding, no premium prices to pay.
All we see from EBLEX is an endless stream of directives telling us how to improve our businesses. We don't need any of them. It is in our interests to run our businesses as efficiently as we possibly can. We can produce the goods quite adequately without any input from expensive 'advisors': all EBLEX has to do is promote them. Perhaps 2013 will be the year it finally discovers there is life beyond Europe. Reported by This is 3 hours ago.
↧
The Punter: Manchester United can topple Real Madrid but won’t rule Europe
The chances of an eighth British club in the Champions League final in the last nine years, are unlikely after the draw for the last 16 draw which leaves Manchester United, Arsenal and Celtic facing difficult assignments in their bid to reach the quarter-finals.
Reported by Belfast Telegraph 3 hours ago.
↧
New Year Honours: Complete list of West's inspirational heroes
Somerset -- The West's inspirational unsung heroes stand alongside our London 2012 Olympic champions this morning after being named in the New Year Honours list. Below is a complete list of those who have received honours in the West Country. *OBE* Ms Carleen Tina Kelemen. Director, Convergence Partnership Office for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. For services to Social Justice and Economic Inclusion. (South Brent, Devon) Mrs Monika Kinley. Art dealer and artists' agent. For services to the Visual Arts. (Plymouth, Devon) Dr Marian Frances Liebmann. For services to Social Justice through Art Therapy and Mediation in Bristol and Overseas. (Bristol) David Charles Penlington. Ministry of Defence. For services to the Armed Forces particularly in Support of Afghanistan Operations. (Gloucestershire) Mrs Daphne Vivienne Pullen. Chair CLIC Sargent, For charitable services. (Warminster, Wiltshire) Martin Sadler. Director of Cloud and Security Lab, Hewlett Packard Laboratories. For services to Science. (Stoke Gifford, Bristol) Professor Bhupinder Kaur Sandhu. Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Bristol Royal Hospital, South West. For services to Paediatric Medicine. (Clifton, Bristol) Mrs Lesley Margaret Walter. Headteacher, Philip Green Memorial School and governor, Middle School, Wimborne, Dorset. For services to Special Educational Needs. (Wimborne, Dorset) Professor Derek William Aviss. Formerly executive director and joint principal, Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance. For services to Higher and Music Education. (Cirencester, Gloucestershire) Mrs Annette Lesley Brooke. Member of Parliament for Mid Dorset and North Poole. For public and political service. (Dorset) Ms Juliet Sarah Davenport. Founder and chief executive, Good Energy Group plc. For services to Renewable Electricity Supplies. (Stroud, Gloucestershire) William Howard Robert Durie. For services to the community in Bristol. (Abbots Leigh, Bristol) Ms Anthea Dolman Gair. Ministry of Defence. For services to Defence Acquisition. (Gloucestershire) Professor Brian William Golding. Scientific Fellow, Meteorological Office. For services to Weather Forecasting and the Prediction of Hazardous Weather. (Sidmouth, Devon) Paul David Newman. For services to voluntary organisations in the UK. (Ross on Wye, Herefordshire) Denys Shortt. Founder, DCS Europe plc and lately chair, Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership. For services to the Economy in the West Midlands. (Broadway, Gloucestershire) *CBE* Richard Long. Landscape artist and sculptor. For services to Art. (Bristol) Martin Coulson Spray. Chief executive, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. For services to Nature Conservation. Stephen Visscher. Deputy chief executive and chief operating officer, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. For services to the Support of Scientific Research. (Marlborough, Wiltshire) Paul Stephen Westbury. Chief executive officer, Buro Happold. For services to Engineering and Construction. (Frome, Somerset) *MBE* Dr Margaret Rose Stevenson Barker. Founder, Dorchester Poverty Action Group and The Hub. For services to Homeless and Underprivileged People in Dorchester. (Dorchester, Dorset) Mrs June Rosemary Barnes. For services to the community in Frome, Somerset. (Frome, Somerset) John Henry Batchelor. Illustrator. For services to IIlustration. (Wimborne, Dorset) Dr Melissa Hardie-Budden. For services to Heritage and the Arts in West Cornwall. (Cornwall) Colonel Stamford James Cartwright, TD. For voluntary service to the West Midland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. (Hereford, Herefordshire) Mrs Winifred Joan Clark. Deputy director-general, British Holiday and Home Parks Association. For services to Tourism. (Berkeley, Gloucestershire) Mrs Jillian Carol Clarke. For services to the community in Sutton Benger, Wiltshire. (Chippenham, Wiltshire) Anthony Ronald Coombes. For services to the community in Gillingham Dorset. (Gillingham, Dorset) Julian Michael Crow. Regional manager, West of England, First Great Western. For services to the Rail Industry. (Newton Ferrers, Devon) Mrs Marilyn Margaret Darg. Magistrate, North Somerset Bench. For services to the Administration of Justice. (Somerset) Eric Charles Darlow. For services to the UK Quarrying Industry. (Wellington, Somerset) Ms Brigitte Engelien-Dawson. For services to the communities in Freshford and Bath. (Bath, Somerset) David William Edgington. For services to the Industrial Heritage of the Stationary Engine. (Westbury, Wiltshire) Mrs Sheila Dorothy Evans. President, Great Oaks Hospice, Coleford. For charitable services. (Gloucestershire) Mrs Kathleen Hilda Ford. Head of corporate information management department, Avon and Somerset Constabulary. For services to Information Management in Policing. (Portishead, North Somerset) Mrs Jacqueline Franklin. Foster Carer, Bristol. For services to Children and Families. (Redland, Bristol) John Alan Franklin. Foster carer, Bristol. For services to Children and Families. (Redland, Bristol) Ms Catherine Greig. General manager, The Travelling Light Theatre Company. For services to Theatre for Young People in Bristol. (Totterdown, Bristol) Philip Raymond Hopkins. Foster Carer, Dorset County Council. For services to Children and Families. (Sherborne, Dorset) Mrs Wendy Una Hopkins. Foster carer, Dorset County Council. For services to Children and Families. (Sherborne, Dorset) Mrs Margaret Eileen Mary Jackson. Founder and chair, North Somerset Masonic Widows' Association. For services to charity in North Somerset. (Wrington, Somerset) Simon Pugh-Jones. Science teacher, Writhlington School, Bath. For services to Education. (Frome, Somerset) Mrs Marilyn Joy Kelly. For charitable services in Newton Abbot, Devon. (Newton Abbot, Devon) Nicholas Lewis. Formerly deputy chief executive, South West Regional Development Agency. For services to the Economy in the South West. (Crediton, Devon) Alan William Bedford Smith. Chairman, Pipex Ltd. For services to the Manufacturing Industry. (Newton Abbot, Devon) John Michael Tupman. Special constable, Wiltshire Police. For services to Policing and to the community in Marlborough. (Marlborough, Wiltshire) Ms Kresse Wesling. Entrepreneur. For services to Corporate Social Responsibility. (Boscombe, Dorset) Ms Frances Elizabeth White. Manager, Little Haddon Residential Care Home. For services to People with Learning Disabilities. (Axminster, Devon) Philip White. Chief executive, Hestercombe Gardens Trust. For services to Historic Garden Restoration. (Dorset) David Ronald Williams. Managing director, WTW Cinemas. For services to Regional Cinema. (Wadebridge) Simon Williams. Head of 2012 Operations, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. For services to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (Dorchester, Dorset) Miss Jane Withey. Founder, Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. For services to Wildlife Crime Enforcement and to Girl Guiding in Somerset North. (Keynsham, Somerset) *KCMG* Iain Robert Lobban, CB. Director, Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham (GCHQ). For services to UK national security. *QUEEN'S POLICE MEDAL* Michael Bryan Matthews. Temporary Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Police. *BRITISH EMPIRE MEDAL* Mrs Heather Elizabeth Andrews. President, 1st Yeovil Girls' Brigade. For services to Children and Young People. (Yeovil, Somerset) Colin Baker. For services to the Royal Mail and to the Disabled Club in Dorchester. (Dorchester, Dorset) Mrs Ann Margaret Barwood. For voluntary services to Exeter Cathedral. (Exminster, Devon) Mrs Alison Bevan. Director, Penlee House, Penzance. For services to Cultural Heritage in Cornwall. (Penzance, Cornwall) Mrs Brenda Bonwell. Chair, Weymouth and Portland Friends Group, Julia's House Children's Hospice. For services to Charity. (Weymouth, Dorset) Mrs Daphne Breakspear. For services to Amateur Drama in Swindon. (Swindon, Wiltshire) John Herbert Bryant. For services to the community in Kingsthorne Herefordshire. (Herefordshire) David Leonard Deacon. For charitable services and to the community in Warminster Wiltshire. (Shaftesbury, Dorset) Graham Richard Furley. For services to the community in Stroud Gloucestershire. (Stroud, Gloucestershire) Michael Harvey Gee. For services to Orchard Conservation in North Devon. (Barnstaple, Devon) Mrs Dorene Marjorie Hargreaves. For services to fitness and to the community in Bedminster and Wick, South Gloucestershire. (Wick, Gloucestershire) Trevor Hellier. For services to the community in Polden Hill Somerset. (Bridgwater, Somerset) Mrs Valerie Joslin. For services to the community in Tatworth, Somerset. (Chard, Somerset) Patrick Joyce. Fundraiser, Motor Neurone Disease Association. For services to charity. (Wells, Somerset) Mrs Amanda Elizabeth Kimmins. For services to the community of St. Agnes, Cornwall. (St Agnes, Cornwall) Mrs Betty Susan Snell Koppa. For services to the community and Residents of North Curry, Taunton. (Somerset) Mrs Jane Pauline Legat. For services to the community in Whiteparish, Wiltshire. Mrs Phyllis Janet Madron. Fundraiser, RNLI Penlee and Penzance. For services to Maritime Safety. (Penzance, Cornwall) Mrs Bridie Frances Marshall. Youth worker, Peasedown Youth Centre. For services to Young People and Families in Bath and North East Somerset. (Nr Bath, Somerset) Mrs Diana Elizabeth McDowell. For services to Heritage in Shaftesbury, Dorset through the Gold Hill Museum. (Shaftesbury, Dorset) Mrs Jean Meredith. For services to the community and to charity in Radstock, Somerset. (Radstock, Somerset) Mrs Monica Murdoch. For services to the community in Blagdon, Somerset. Mrs Diana Nicholls. For services to the community in Newton Abbot, South Devon. (Newton Abbot, Devon) Professor Deryck Neill Nuttall. For services to the community in Taunton Somerset. (Taunton, Somerset) Colonel Richard Anthony Pinder. For services to the Fovant Bages Society and to the community in Fovant Wiltshire. (Salisbury, Wiltshire) Michael John Pitt. For services to the Royal Air Force and to the community in Woolacombe, Devon. (Woolacombe, Devon) Martyn Stafford Poole. For services to the community in Downend South Gloucestershire. (Bristol) Mrs Wendy Price. Manager and supervisor, Llangrove Leapfrogs Childcare and Girl Guide Leader, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire. For services to Children, Young People and Families. (Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire) Mrs Pamela Molly Richards. For services to the community in Foxhole, Cornwall. (St Austell, Cornwall) Mrs Doris Amy May Russell. For services to the community in Colaton Raleigh, East Devon. (Sidmouth, Devon) Michael Lewis Shore. President, Bristol and District Rugby Football Combination. For services to Community Rugby in South West England. (Bristol) Peter William Skellon. For voluntary service to the RAF Association Concert Band. (Weston-super-Mare, Somerset) Mrs Lilan May Smallshaw. For services to the community in Seend, Wiltshire. (Melksham, Wiltshire) Mrs Barbara Snowling. For services to the community in Crafthole, Cornwall. (Torpoint, Cornwall) Mrs Lorraine Anne Tucker. For voluntary service to The City of Plymouth Children Fund and to the community in Devon. (Torquay, Devon) Mrs Helen Mary Watkins. For services to the community in Mudford, Somerset. (Yeovil, Somerset) Mrs Irene Alice Wills. For services to the Pisces Swimming Club and to the community in Plymouth, Devon. (Plymouth, Devon) Mrs Gwenyth Anne Yarker. Curator and Trustee, Dorset County Museum. For services to Museums. (Dorchester, Dorset)
Reported by This is 2 hours ago.
↧
↧
TOM BRADSHAW: Heineken Cup absence is keenly felt at The Rec
Bath --
There was a spectre haunting The Rec on Saturday. Never mind the ghost of Christmas Past, this was the ghost of the Heineken Cup.
The sound beating handed to Bath by Saracens was in no small part due to Charlie Hodgson's marksmanship and the streetwise way the visitors handled the atrocious conditions.
But I'd suggest another factor was the contrasting build-ups the two sides had experienced over the preceding fortnight of European rugby.
Bath played back-to-back fixtures against an effectively second-tier Italian side, winning both games by a handsome margin.
Sarries, by contrast, arrived at The Rec following an altogether sterner ordeal – consecutive games against one of the titans of the European club game, Munster.
Moreover, they arrived on the crest of a wave having seen off the former European champions at Vicarage Road.
Calvisano and Munster. Amlin and Heineken. Chalk and cheese.
The level of intensity required to front up against the former bears no resemblance to what the latter requires. As such, it cannot come as a surprise that Bath took a while to warm to their task on Saturday – by which point Saracens had the game by the scruff of the neck.
The logic here is that playing in the Amlin Cup doesn't just hinder your chances of competing against the best in Europe, it can hinder your ability to keep pace with the best in the Premiership.
Bath were distinctly off that pace on Saturday, although there were brief flashes of encouragement. They got their mauling working to potent effect on a couple of occasions and had the Sarries scrum in trouble early in the first period.
But at key moments, the Saracens set-piece delivered – and the visitors kept the scoreboard turning over.
Bath head coach Gary Gold spoke ahead of this fixture of how Saracens had set the benchmark in the Premiership. Measured against that benchmark, Bath are some distance away from hitting the standards of their rivals.
Coach Mike Ford admitted as much after the final whistle, before adding: "We're not slitting our throats yet."
The majority of the Premiership season is played in poor weather and Saracens delivered a masterclass in not only coping with the elements but in turning them to their advantage. As Bath's knock-on count crept up, so did Sarries' stranglehold.
It couldn't have been a much more dismal start to the festive period for Bath and their supporters. The resolve of Gold's side will now be put to the test with consecutive away matches against Exeter and Wasps.
It isn't a fixture card for the faint-hearted but it's one which could play a large part in determining whether Bath are in contention for Heineken Cup rugby next season. Reported by This is 1 hour ago.
There was a spectre haunting The Rec on Saturday. Never mind the ghost of Christmas Past, this was the ghost of the Heineken Cup.
The sound beating handed to Bath by Saracens was in no small part due to Charlie Hodgson's marksmanship and the streetwise way the visitors handled the atrocious conditions.
But I'd suggest another factor was the contrasting build-ups the two sides had experienced over the preceding fortnight of European rugby.
Bath played back-to-back fixtures against an effectively second-tier Italian side, winning both games by a handsome margin.
Sarries, by contrast, arrived at The Rec following an altogether sterner ordeal – consecutive games against one of the titans of the European club game, Munster.
Moreover, they arrived on the crest of a wave having seen off the former European champions at Vicarage Road.
Calvisano and Munster. Amlin and Heineken. Chalk and cheese.
The level of intensity required to front up against the former bears no resemblance to what the latter requires. As such, it cannot come as a surprise that Bath took a while to warm to their task on Saturday – by which point Saracens had the game by the scruff of the neck.
The logic here is that playing in the Amlin Cup doesn't just hinder your chances of competing against the best in Europe, it can hinder your ability to keep pace with the best in the Premiership.
Bath were distinctly off that pace on Saturday, although there were brief flashes of encouragement. They got their mauling working to potent effect on a couple of occasions and had the Sarries scrum in trouble early in the first period.
But at key moments, the Saracens set-piece delivered – and the visitors kept the scoreboard turning over.
Bath head coach Gary Gold spoke ahead of this fixture of how Saracens had set the benchmark in the Premiership. Measured against that benchmark, Bath are some distance away from hitting the standards of their rivals.
Coach Mike Ford admitted as much after the final whistle, before adding: "We're not slitting our throats yet."
The majority of the Premiership season is played in poor weather and Saracens delivered a masterclass in not only coping with the elements but in turning them to their advantage. As Bath's knock-on count crept up, so did Sarries' stranglehold.
It couldn't have been a much more dismal start to the festive period for Bath and their supporters. The resolve of Gold's side will now be put to the test with consecutive away matches against Exeter and Wasps.
It isn't a fixture card for the faint-hearted but it's one which could play a large part in determining whether Bath are in contention for Heineken Cup rugby next season. Reported by This is 1 hour ago.
↧
We may never see a great sporting year like this one again in our lives
Somerset --
It was about three days from the end of the Olympics when it dawned on me that, not only were the Games about to end, but sporting life in this country was probably never going to be as good again.
Pessimistic? Possibly. Realistic? Almost certainly. Because, even if I live to be 100, I cannot imagine bearing witness to a greater sporting year – and what was so remarkable about 2012 was that it was not just about the Olympics.
The Olympics were an enormous, pivotal part of our sporting year; not only did they take place on our soil, and not only did we host a party the whole world could enjoy, but our athletes showcased Great Britain as a competitive, in some areas world-leading, sporting nation.
Great Britain, let us not forget, won one gold medal in Atlanta in 1996, 11 in Sydney in 2000, nine in Athens in 2004 and what was deemed at the time to be a stunning 19 in Beijing four years later.
This summer, despite not standing atop the podium in the opening four days of competition, British athletes won 29 gold medals.
Mo Farah, who took athletics gold in both the 5,000 and 10,000 metre races, was not even voted into the top three in the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year award.
The previous year, he had finished third, behind Darren Clarke and winner Mark Cavendish, on the back of winning one gold and one silver at the World Championships.
The year has been a sporting feast and we have gorged ourselves on the highs and highs of top-quality action, much in the way many of us will have stuffed ourselves with turkey and chocolates these past few days.
But one of the greatest things about the sporting year – and I could not have foreseen it in the final days of the Olympics – was that the triumphs kept on coming, with many of the finest sporting achievements by Brits in 2012 taking place away from the capital city.
After Bradley Wiggins had become the first Brit to ever win the Tour de France, and after the unbridled and unprecedented feel-good factor offered by the Olympics and Paralympics, the treats continued – at Flushing Meadows, on the greens of Medinah, and the ovals of India.
Every time something remarkable happened – like Andy Murray winning his first major tennis tournament, Europe's golfers turning the Ryder Cup on its head on the final day, or England winning a first Test series in India since 1984-85 – the sense of what a spectacular year this has been grew higher and higher.
From such highs, there is the fear we may fall into a state of longing for what was, particularly if next year fails – and it, of course, will – to reach this year's incredibly high standards. But as Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote, albeit not with tennis or golf or cycling or athletics or cricket or darts in mind, it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
And this was the year that we either fell in love with sport for the first time, fell back in love with it, or fell further in love with it; a year where what we saw unfold at the velodrome or on the tennis court or in the mountains of France had us spellbound by the brilliance of human beings and sport.
Of course, the year was not without failure – plenty of medal hopefuls at the Olympics did not make it to the podium, or did not secure the colour of medal they desired, while England's footballers flopped again at a major tournament. Many of our local teams have toiled.
The year was not without scandal – and there are few scandals of sport bigger than the way in which Lance Armstrong's myth fell apart around him – while football was blighted again by high-profile racism issues.
But, all in all, it has been a glorious year – and two sporting stories that stood out for me this year were ones that bookended the year.
The first was a tale that unfolded in Gabon in February; the second, one that played out in a series of documents that were revealed at Liverpool Cathedral and then in a High Court judgment.
Because, when unfancied Zambia not only reached the final of the Africa Cup of Nations in Libreville but won it in a shoot-out against heavyweights Ivory Coast, it was much more than a triumph for the underdog.
As coincidence would have it – and this must be one of the most bizarre coincidences in sporting history – Zambia's first-ever Africa Cup of Nations victory came not only in the same country (Gabon were hosting the tournament for the first time) but the same city where, 19 years earlier, an aeroplane carrying the Zambian national football team crashed, killing 18 players.
Zambia winning the tournament anywhere on the African continent would have been a remarkable story in itself; that it happened in Libreville makes it difficult, even for a cynic like me, to dismiss the concept of fate.
The other story that stood out for me in this wonderful sporting year was a victory for the pursuit of justice and truth rather than anything that happened on a field. The families of the 96 Liverpool supporters killed at Hillsborough in 1989 finally began to be rewarded for their persistent quest for truth and justice.
Not only did the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report completely exonerate the supporters, rubbish the lies, place the blame squarely at the feet of the authorities and expose a huge police cover-up, it paved the way for those responsible to be held to account.
Coupled with the Lord Chief Justice's decision to quash the original inquest verdicts of accidental death and order new inquests, two of the biggest obstacles to achieving justice were removed in 2012.
Even where much bigger and more important issues than merely winning or losing were concerned, 2012 in sport could do little wrong. I just hope you managed to savour it. Reported by This is 54 minutes ago.
It was about three days from the end of the Olympics when it dawned on me that, not only were the Games about to end, but sporting life in this country was probably never going to be as good again.
Pessimistic? Possibly. Realistic? Almost certainly. Because, even if I live to be 100, I cannot imagine bearing witness to a greater sporting year – and what was so remarkable about 2012 was that it was not just about the Olympics.
The Olympics were an enormous, pivotal part of our sporting year; not only did they take place on our soil, and not only did we host a party the whole world could enjoy, but our athletes showcased Great Britain as a competitive, in some areas world-leading, sporting nation.
Great Britain, let us not forget, won one gold medal in Atlanta in 1996, 11 in Sydney in 2000, nine in Athens in 2004 and what was deemed at the time to be a stunning 19 in Beijing four years later.
This summer, despite not standing atop the podium in the opening four days of competition, British athletes won 29 gold medals.
Mo Farah, who took athletics gold in both the 5,000 and 10,000 metre races, was not even voted into the top three in the BBC's Sports Personality of the Year award.
The previous year, he had finished third, behind Darren Clarke and winner Mark Cavendish, on the back of winning one gold and one silver at the World Championships.
The year has been a sporting feast and we have gorged ourselves on the highs and highs of top-quality action, much in the way many of us will have stuffed ourselves with turkey and chocolates these past few days.
But one of the greatest things about the sporting year – and I could not have foreseen it in the final days of the Olympics – was that the triumphs kept on coming, with many of the finest sporting achievements by Brits in 2012 taking place away from the capital city.
After Bradley Wiggins had become the first Brit to ever win the Tour de France, and after the unbridled and unprecedented feel-good factor offered by the Olympics and Paralympics, the treats continued – at Flushing Meadows, on the greens of Medinah, and the ovals of India.
Every time something remarkable happened – like Andy Murray winning his first major tennis tournament, Europe's golfers turning the Ryder Cup on its head on the final day, or England winning a first Test series in India since 1984-85 – the sense of what a spectacular year this has been grew higher and higher.
From such highs, there is the fear we may fall into a state of longing for what was, particularly if next year fails – and it, of course, will – to reach this year's incredibly high standards. But as Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote, albeit not with tennis or golf or cycling or athletics or cricket or darts in mind, it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
And this was the year that we either fell in love with sport for the first time, fell back in love with it, or fell further in love with it; a year where what we saw unfold at the velodrome or on the tennis court or in the mountains of France had us spellbound by the brilliance of human beings and sport.
Of course, the year was not without failure – plenty of medal hopefuls at the Olympics did not make it to the podium, or did not secure the colour of medal they desired, while England's footballers flopped again at a major tournament. Many of our local teams have toiled.
The year was not without scandal – and there are few scandals of sport bigger than the way in which Lance Armstrong's myth fell apart around him – while football was blighted again by high-profile racism issues.
But, all in all, it has been a glorious year – and two sporting stories that stood out for me this year were ones that bookended the year.
The first was a tale that unfolded in Gabon in February; the second, one that played out in a series of documents that were revealed at Liverpool Cathedral and then in a High Court judgment.
Because, when unfancied Zambia not only reached the final of the Africa Cup of Nations in Libreville but won it in a shoot-out against heavyweights Ivory Coast, it was much more than a triumph for the underdog.
As coincidence would have it – and this must be one of the most bizarre coincidences in sporting history – Zambia's first-ever Africa Cup of Nations victory came not only in the same country (Gabon were hosting the tournament for the first time) but the same city where, 19 years earlier, an aeroplane carrying the Zambian national football team crashed, killing 18 players.
Zambia winning the tournament anywhere on the African continent would have been a remarkable story in itself; that it happened in Libreville makes it difficult, even for a cynic like me, to dismiss the concept of fate.
The other story that stood out for me in this wonderful sporting year was a victory for the pursuit of justice and truth rather than anything that happened on a field. The families of the 96 Liverpool supporters killed at Hillsborough in 1989 finally began to be rewarded for their persistent quest for truth and justice.
Not only did the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report completely exonerate the supporters, rubbish the lies, place the blame squarely at the feet of the authorities and expose a huge police cover-up, it paved the way for those responsible to be held to account.
Coupled with the Lord Chief Justice's decision to quash the original inquest verdicts of accidental death and order new inquests, two of the biggest obstacles to achieving justice were removed in 2012.
Even where much bigger and more important issues than merely winning or losing were concerned, 2012 in sport could do little wrong. I just hope you managed to savour it. Reported by This is 54 minutes ago.
↧
New Year's Honours List: The unsung champions of the south west
Dorset -- Take a look at the complete list of New year's Honours from the South West region. *OBE* Ms Carleen Tina Kelemen. Director, Convergence Partnership Office for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. For services to Social Justice and Economic Inclusion. (South Brent, Devon) Mrs Monika Kinley. Art dealer and artists' agent. For services to the Visual Arts. (Plymouth, Devon) Dr Marian Frances Liebmann. For services to Social Justice through Art Therapy and Mediation in Bristol and Overseas. (Bristol) David Charles Penlington. Ministry of Defence. For services to the Armed Forces particularly in Support of Afghanistan Operations. (Gloucestershire) Mrs Daphne Vivienne Pullen. Chair CLIC Sargent, For charitable services. (Warminster, Wiltshire) Martin Sadler. Director of Cloud and Security Lab, Hewlett Packard Laboratories. For services to Science. (Stoke Gifford, Bristol) Professor Bhupinder Kaur Sandhu. Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Bristol Royal Hospital, South West. For services to Paediatric Medicine. (Clifton, Bristol) Mrs Lesley Margaret Walter. Headteacher, Philip Green Memorial School and governor, Middle School, Wimborne, Dorset. For services to Special Educational Needs. (Wimborne, Dorset) Professor Derek William Aviss. Formerly executive director and joint principal, Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance. For services to Higher and Music Education. (Cirencester, Gloucestershire) Mrs Annette Lesley Brooke. Member of Parliament for Mid Dorset and North Poole. For public and political service. (Dorset) Ms Juliet Sarah Davenport. Founder and chief executive, Good Energy Group plc. For services to Renewable Electricity Supplies. (Stroud, Gloucestershire) William Howard Robert Durie. For services to the community in Bristol. (Abbots Leigh, Bristol) Ms Anthea Dolman Gair. Ministry of Defence. For services to Defence Acquisition. (Gloucestershire) Professor Brian William Golding. Scientific Fellow, Meteorological Office. For services to Weather Forecasting and the Prediction of Hazardous Weather. (Sidmouth, Devon) Paul David Newman. For services to voluntary organisations in the UK. (Ross on Wye, Herefordshire) Denys Shortt. Founder, DCS Europe plc and lately chair, Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership. For services to the Economy in the West Midlands. (Broadway, Gloucestershire) *CBE* Richard Long. Landscape artist and sculptor. For services to Art. (Bristol) Martin Coulson Spray. Chief executive, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. For services to Nature Conservation. Stephen Visscher. Deputy chief executive and chief operating officer, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. For services to the Support of Scientific Research. (Marlborough, Wiltshire) Paul Stephen Westbury. Chief executive officer, Buro Happold. For services to Engineering and Construction. (Frome, Somerset) *MBE* Dr Margaret Rose Stevenson Barker. Founder, Dorchester Poverty Action Group and The Hub. For services to Homeless and Underprivileged People in Dorchester. (Dorchester, Dorset) Mrs June Rosemary Barnes. For services to the community in Frome, Somerset. (Frome, Somerset) John Henry Batchelor. Illustrator. For services to IIlustration. (Wimborne, Dorset) Dr Melissa Hardie-Budden. For services to Heritage and the Arts in West Cornwall. (Cornwall) Colonel Stamford James Cartwright, TD. For voluntary service to the West Midland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. (Hereford, Herefordshire) Mrs Winifred Joan Clark. Deputy director-general, British Holiday and Home Parks Association. For services to Tourism. (Berkeley, Gloucestershire) Mrs Jillian Carol Clarke. For services to the community in Sutton Benger, Wiltshire. (Chippenham, Wiltshire) Anthony Ronald Coombes. For services to the community in Gillingham Dorset. (Gillingham, Dorset) Julian Michael Crow. Regional manager, West of England, First Great Western. For services to the Rail Industry. (Newton Ferrers, Devon) Mrs Marilyn Margaret Darg. Magistrate, North Somerset Bench. For services to the Administration of Justice. (Somerset) Eric Charles Darlow. For services to the UK Quarrying Industry. (Wellington, Somerset) Ms Brigitte Engelien-Dawson. For services to the communities in Freshford and Bath. (Bath, Somerset) David William Edgington. For services to the Industrial Heritage of the Stationary Engine. (Westbury, Wiltshire) Mrs Sheila Dorothy Evans. President, Great Oaks Hospice, Coleford. For charitable services. (Gloucestershire) Mrs Kathleen Hilda Ford. Head of corporate information management department, Avon and Somerset Constabulary. For services to Information Management in Policing. (Portishead, North Somerset) Mrs Jacqueline Franklin. Foster Carer, Bristol. For services to Children and Families. (Redland, Bristol) John Alan Franklin. Foster carer, Bristol. For services to Children and Families. (Redland, Bristol) Ms Catherine Greig. General manager, The Travelling Light Theatre Company. For services to Theatre for Young People in Bristol. (Totterdown, Bristol) Philip Raymond Hopkins. Foster Carer, Dorset County Council. For services to Children and Families. (Sherborne, Dorset) Mrs Wendy Una Hopkins. Foster carer, Dorset County Council. For services to Children and Families. (Sherborne, Dorset) Mrs Margaret Eileen Mary Jackson. Founder and chair, North Somerset Masonic Widows' Association. For services to charity in North Somerset. (Wrington, Somerset) Simon Pugh-Jones. Science teacher, Writhlington School, Bath. For services to Education. (Frome, Somerset) Mrs Marilyn Joy Kelly. For charitable services in Newton Abbot, Devon. (Newton Abbot, Devon) Nicholas Lewis. Formerly deputy chief executive, South West Regional Development Agency. For services to the Economy in the South West. (Crediton, Devon) Alan William Bedford Smith. Chairman, Pipex Ltd. For services to the Manufacturing Industry. (Newton Abbot, Devon) John Michael Tupman. Special constable, Wiltshire Police. For services to Policing and to the community in Marlborough. (Marlborough, Wiltshire) Ms Kresse Wesling. Entrepreneur. For services to Corporate Social Responsibility. (Boscombe, Dorset) Ms Frances Elizabeth White. Manager, Little Haddon Residential Care Home. For services to People with Learning Disabilities. (Axminster, Devon) Philip White. Chief executive, Hestercombe Gardens Trust. For services to Historic Garden Restoration. (Dorset) David Ronald Williams. Managing director, WTW Cinemas. For services to Regional Cinema. (Wadebridge) Simon Williams. Head of 2012 Operations, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. For services to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. (Dorchester, Dorset) Miss Jane Withey. Founder, Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. For services to Wildlife Crime Enforcement and to Girl Guiding in Somerset North. (Keynsham, Somerset) *KCMG* Iain Robert Lobban, CB. Director, Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham (GCHQ). For services to UK national security. *QUEEN'S POLICE MEDAL* Michael Bryan Matthews. Temporary Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Police. *BRITISH EMPIRE MEDAL* Mrs Heather Elizabeth Andrews. President, 1st Yeovil Girls' Brigade. For services to Children and Young People. (Yeovil, Somerset) Colin Baker. For services to the Royal Mail and to the Disabled Club in Dorchester. (Dorchester, Dorset) Mrs Ann Margaret Barwood. For voluntary services to Exeter Cathedral. (Exminster, Devon) Mrs Alison Bevan. Director, Penlee House, Penzance. For services to Cultural Heritage in Cornwall. (Penzance, Cornwall) Mrs Brenda Bonwell. Chair, Weymouth and Portland Friends Group, Julia's House Children's Hospice. For services to Charity. (Weymouth, Dorset) Mrs Daphne Breakspear. For services to Amateur Drama in Swindon. (Swindon, Wiltshire) John Herbert Bryant. For services to the community in Kingsthorne Herefordshire. (Herefordshire) David Leonard Deacon. For charitable services and to the community in Warminster Wiltshire. (Shaftesbury, Dorset) Graham Richard Furley. For services to the community in Stroud Gloucestershire. (Stroud, Gloucestershire) Michael Harvey Gee. For services to Orchard Conservation in North Devon. (Barnstaple, Devon) Mrs Dorene Marjorie Hargreaves. For services to fitness and to the community in Bedminster and Wick, South Gloucestershire. (Wick, Gloucestershire) Trevor Hellier. For services to the community in Polden Hill Somerset. (Bridgwater, Somerset) Mrs Valerie Joslin. For services to the community in Tatworth, Somerset. (Chard, Somerset) Patrick Joyce. Fundraiser, Motor Neurone Disease Association. For services to charity. (Wells, Somerset) Mrs Amanda Elizabeth Kimmins. For services to the community of St. Agnes, Cornwall. (St Agnes, Cornwall) Mrs Betty Susan Snell Koppa. For services to the community and Residents of North Curry, Taunton. (Somerset) Mrs Jane Pauline Legat. For services to the community in Whiteparish, Wiltshire. Mrs Phyllis Janet Madron. Fundraiser, RNLI Penlee and Penzance. For services to Maritime Safety. (Penzance, Cornwall) Mrs Bridie Frances Marshall. Youth worker, Peasedown Youth Centre. For services to Young People and Families in Bath and North East Somerset. (Nr Bath, Somerset) Mrs Diana Elizabeth McDowell. For services to Heritage in Shaftesbury, Dorset through the Gold Hill Museum. (Shaftesbury, Dorset) Mrs Jean Meredith. For services to the community and to charity in Radstock, Somerset. (Radstock, Somerset) Mrs Monica Murdoch. For services to the community in Blagdon, Somerset. Mrs Diana Nicholls. For services to the community in Newton Abbot, South Devon. (Newton Abbot, Devon) Professor Deryck Neill Nuttall. For services to the community in Taunton Somerset. (Taunton, Somerset) Colonel Richard Anthony Pinder. For services to the Fovant Bages Society and to the community in Fovant Wiltshire. (Salisbury, Wiltshire) Michael John Pitt. For services to the Royal Air Force and to the community in Woolacombe, Devon. (Woolacombe, Devon) Martyn Stafford Poole. For services to the community in Downend South Gloucestershire. (Bristol) Mrs Wendy Price. Manager and supervisor, Llangrove Leapfrogs Childcare and Girl Guide Leader, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire. For services to Children, Young People and Families. (Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire) Mrs Pamela Molly Richards. For services to the community in Foxhole, Cornwall. (St Austell, Cornwall) Mrs Doris Amy May Russell. For services to the community in Colaton Raleigh, East Devon. (Sidmouth, Devon) Michael Lewis Shore. President, Bristol and District Rugby Football Combination. For services to Community Rugby in South West England. (Bristol) Peter William Skellon. For voluntary service to the RAF Association Concert Band. (Weston-super-Mare, Somerset) Mrs Lilan May Smallshaw. For services to the community in Seend, Wiltshire. (Melksham, Wiltshire) Mrs Barbara Snowling. For services to the community in Crafthole, Cornwall. (Torpoint, Cornwall) Mrs Lorraine Anne Tucker. For voluntary service to The City of Plymouth Children Fund and to the community in Devon. (Torquay, Devon) Mrs Helen Mary Watkins. For services to the community in Mudford, Somerset. (Yeovil, Somerset) Mrs Irene Alice Wills. For services to the Pisces Swimming Club and to the community in Plymouth, Devon. (Plymouth, Devon) Mrs Gwenyth Anne Yarker. Curator and Trustee, Dorset County Museum. For services to Museums. (Dorchester, Dorset)
Reported by This is 38 minutes ago.
↧
How city's medieval streets made way for 'one of the ugliest roads in Europe'
Nottingham --
LOVE it or loathe it, Nottingham's Maid Marian Way – the road once dubbed "one of the ugliest in Europe"– has seen some major developments over the years.
Before work started in the late 1950s, no thoroughfare existed in that area of the city.
A Post-war increase in traffic and enthusiasm for "modern" city planning led to the redevelopment of the area between the bottom of Derby Road and Broad Marsh.
Many of the old medieval streets between Castle Hill and the Market Square were cut through, and buildings demolished to make way for the new road.
Some buildings survived, such as the Salutation Inn, the Royal Children pub and St Nicholas' Church.
The result was towering 1960s office blocks and the unpopular pedestrian underpasses.
The new traffic system worked with regard to the through-flow of traffic, but it was less successful for pedestrians, particularly after the closure of Mount Street bus station.
In the 1970s, the road was voted "one of the ugliest in Europe" and shops and offices were constantly changing hands or closing.
In the 1980s, the city council started a programme to improve the area. Flowers and trees were planted and road crossings improved, giving better pedestrian access.
Today, the road is still being developed (for the better). The pedestrian underpasses have been removed and crossings improved; offices have been redeveloped into hotels; and it has many thriving shops, bars, restaurants and a casino.
The old Tesco building was turned into The Tales of Robin Hood tourist attraction, which subsequently closed down. Reported by This is 1 day ago.
LOVE it or loathe it, Nottingham's Maid Marian Way – the road once dubbed "one of the ugliest in Europe"– has seen some major developments over the years.
Before work started in the late 1950s, no thoroughfare existed in that area of the city.
A Post-war increase in traffic and enthusiasm for "modern" city planning led to the redevelopment of the area between the bottom of Derby Road and Broad Marsh.
Many of the old medieval streets between Castle Hill and the Market Square were cut through, and buildings demolished to make way for the new road.
Some buildings survived, such as the Salutation Inn, the Royal Children pub and St Nicholas' Church.
The result was towering 1960s office blocks and the unpopular pedestrian underpasses.
The new traffic system worked with regard to the through-flow of traffic, but it was less successful for pedestrians, particularly after the closure of Mount Street bus station.
In the 1970s, the road was voted "one of the ugliest in Europe" and shops and offices were constantly changing hands or closing.
In the 1980s, the city council started a programme to improve the area. Flowers and trees were planted and road crossings improved, giving better pedestrian access.
Today, the road is still being developed (for the better). The pedestrian underpasses have been removed and crossings improved; offices have been redeveloped into hotels; and it has many thriving shops, bars, restaurants and a casino.
The old Tesco building was turned into The Tales of Robin Hood tourist attraction, which subsequently closed down. Reported by This is 1 day ago.
↧
↧
UK urged to spend Afghan withdrawal savings on defence
US ambassador to Nato says Europe is relying too heavily on America and must use cash to re-equip their military
The UK and other European countries must use the money saved by withdrawing from Afghanistan to re-equip their military and help reverse worrying cuts in defence spending, the American ambassador to Nato will warn on Tuesday.
Ivo Daalder said if Europe did not invest in new capabilities, its over-reliance on America would continue at a time when Washington had made the far east and China its new strategic priority.
"If we don't start soon in investing in those capabilities then the gap between the US and the rest is going to grow. And if it is bad now, then it will be worse. If we have problems, they will be even worse."
The ambassador's remarks come as the UK and the US prepare to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan in 2013 in advance of the deadline to end all combat operations by the end of 2014.
Two weeks ago, David Cameron announced that 3,800 British personnel![ext]()
would withdraw from Helmand province in the next 12 months, and later hinted that the total could be higher.
The Ministry of Defence budget has been under huge strain over the past two years and Treasury officials have been privately urging the prime minister to speed up the withdrawal to cut costs.
But Daalder believes Nato allies should plough these savings back into military equipment that is urgently needed to maintain the organisation's strength.
He said last year's Libya campaign had shown Nato was capable of reacting quickly and effectively to a crisis, but warned it had also exposed "worrisome trends" in Europe's ability to act without relying heavily on US help.
If this is not addressed, he said, Nato would not be able to undertake a Libya-style campaign again in 10 years' time.
His remarks offer a stark warning to European governments about cuts in defence spending at a time of turmoil in Syria and across the Middle East.
He revealed the US had sold some advanced munitions to Nato during the Libya campaign because European stockpiles were running out, and there were a "number of other critical capabilities that the US provided in spades".
"In the end we had enough and we were able to resupply and sell equipment," said Daalder. "But it did demonstrate that stocks of equipment had run out and that people were not investing sufficiently to have these capabilities."
For this reason, he said, countries withdrawing troops from Afghanistan should not use the peace dividend to spend on other parts of their budgets.
"That investment, that cost of the operations in Afghanistan [should] be retained and be reinvested in re-equipping the force, investing in new capabilities down the line. What we don't want to see is, as the troops come home because the job is done, we take those savings and pump them into other parts of the budget. We would like those savings to be reinvested in real capabilities because, in part, the expenditure on Afghanistan has come at the cost of procuring new capabilities."
Daalder's remarks reflect concern in the US that Europe cannot wean itself off American military help. The White House wants Europe to shoulder more of the burden to keep Nato robust.
Daalder said the lack of munitions for the air campaign over Libya was "a signal that there is a lack of investment in critical core capabilities by the alliance, and that the continuing cuts in defence spending raise, over time, serious questions about sustainability.
"Not whether we can start a conflict, but whether we can sustain a large-scale conflict over time. Those are the kinds of issues we focused on in the aftermath of the Libya war and are now on the agenda."
Daalder added: "We can squeeze a lot from better co-operation, working together and smart defence. But at some point output is determined by input, and here the trend is, frankly, not good.
"The amount of resources and investment in defences is declining and has declined. If current trends continue, in 10 years from now this alliance would not have been able to mount the kind of campaign it did in Libya. The real question for the alliance is, when are the spending patterns going to be reversed, so that you can build that sustainable force that is capable of fighting wars and conducting operations without having to rely solely on the US for its core capability?
"That is the challenge for the remainder of this decade."
Nato countries are supposed to commit 2% of their GDP to defence spending, but Daalder said only three – the UK, Greece and Macedonia – were at this level. The US, he said, accounted for 75% of Nato's budget and spent 4% of its GDP on defence.
This month, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, said Germany needed to do more for Nato![ext]()
, but Daalder said no one country could solve the problem.
"The issue is not just Germany doing more, it is everyone doing more. There isn't a single country in this alliance that spends more than 2% [on its military]. In fact, only three countries right now spend 2%. Far more countries are closer to 1%.
"That is really where the rub is. Yes, Germany needs to do more, but it is not just Germany. I don't think the solution is to point the finger at one country and say: 'If only they did more the alliance would be in better shape.'
"I do think frankly the issue is that all of us – that includes the UK and France – are looking at savings by cutting defence at a time when the balance between European and US investment has shifted dramatically in favour of the US. Not just because the US is spending more, but because Europe is spending less."
Daalder said he expected defence spending to return to previous levels once economies start to grow again.
"We recognise that we are all going through tough financial times. Under those circumstances the ability to spend more on defence is constrained. We do expect that once growth resumes that the level of spending on defence will go back to levels that we have seen before.
"The current ceilings should not become the new ceilings, but floors from which we will build up. We can live where we are today, not comfortably. But looking to the future, when growth picks up, so should defence spending. As the cost of the Afghan war goes down, those savings are to be reinvested in real capability."
According to MoD figures, the UK spent £4.1bn on its military effort in Afghanistan in 2011-12. This will fall to £3.6bn in 2013. The Treasury has been pushing for an early withdrawal from Afghanistan to save money and has no plans to increase spending on defence. Reported by guardian.co.uk 18 hours ago.
The UK and other European countries must use the money saved by withdrawing from Afghanistan to re-equip their military and help reverse worrying cuts in defence spending, the American ambassador to Nato will warn on Tuesday.
Ivo Daalder said if Europe did not invest in new capabilities, its over-reliance on America would continue at a time when Washington had made the far east and China its new strategic priority.
"If we don't start soon in investing in those capabilities then the gap between the US and the rest is going to grow. And if it is bad now, then it will be worse. If we have problems, they will be even worse."
The ambassador's remarks come as the UK and the US prepare to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan in 2013 in advance of the deadline to end all combat operations by the end of 2014.
Two weeks ago, David Cameron announced that 3,800 British personnel
would withdraw from Helmand province in the next 12 months, and later hinted that the total could be higher.The Ministry of Defence budget has been under huge strain over the past two years and Treasury officials have been privately urging the prime minister to speed up the withdrawal to cut costs.
But Daalder believes Nato allies should plough these savings back into military equipment that is urgently needed to maintain the organisation's strength.
He said last year's Libya campaign had shown Nato was capable of reacting quickly and effectively to a crisis, but warned it had also exposed "worrisome trends" in Europe's ability to act without relying heavily on US help.
If this is not addressed, he said, Nato would not be able to undertake a Libya-style campaign again in 10 years' time.
His remarks offer a stark warning to European governments about cuts in defence spending at a time of turmoil in Syria and across the Middle East.
He revealed the US had sold some advanced munitions to Nato during the Libya campaign because European stockpiles were running out, and there were a "number of other critical capabilities that the US provided in spades".
"In the end we had enough and we were able to resupply and sell equipment," said Daalder. "But it did demonstrate that stocks of equipment had run out and that people were not investing sufficiently to have these capabilities."
For this reason, he said, countries withdrawing troops from Afghanistan should not use the peace dividend to spend on other parts of their budgets.
"That investment, that cost of the operations in Afghanistan [should] be retained and be reinvested in re-equipping the force, investing in new capabilities down the line. What we don't want to see is, as the troops come home because the job is done, we take those savings and pump them into other parts of the budget. We would like those savings to be reinvested in real capabilities because, in part, the expenditure on Afghanistan has come at the cost of procuring new capabilities."
Daalder's remarks reflect concern in the US that Europe cannot wean itself off American military help. The White House wants Europe to shoulder more of the burden to keep Nato robust.
Daalder said the lack of munitions for the air campaign over Libya was "a signal that there is a lack of investment in critical core capabilities by the alliance, and that the continuing cuts in defence spending raise, over time, serious questions about sustainability.
"Not whether we can start a conflict, but whether we can sustain a large-scale conflict over time. Those are the kinds of issues we focused on in the aftermath of the Libya war and are now on the agenda."
Daalder added: "We can squeeze a lot from better co-operation, working together and smart defence. But at some point output is determined by input, and here the trend is, frankly, not good.
"The amount of resources and investment in defences is declining and has declined. If current trends continue, in 10 years from now this alliance would not have been able to mount the kind of campaign it did in Libya. The real question for the alliance is, when are the spending patterns going to be reversed, so that you can build that sustainable force that is capable of fighting wars and conducting operations without having to rely solely on the US for its core capability?
"That is the challenge for the remainder of this decade."
Nato countries are supposed to commit 2% of their GDP to defence spending, but Daalder said only three – the UK, Greece and Macedonia – were at this level. The US, he said, accounted for 75% of Nato's budget and spent 4% of its GDP on defence.
This month, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, said Germany needed to do more for Nato
, but Daalder said no one country could solve the problem."The issue is not just Germany doing more, it is everyone doing more. There isn't a single country in this alliance that spends more than 2% [on its military]. In fact, only three countries right now spend 2%. Far more countries are closer to 1%.
"That is really where the rub is. Yes, Germany needs to do more, but it is not just Germany. I don't think the solution is to point the finger at one country and say: 'If only they did more the alliance would be in better shape.'
"I do think frankly the issue is that all of us – that includes the UK and France – are looking at savings by cutting defence at a time when the balance between European and US investment has shifted dramatically in favour of the US. Not just because the US is spending more, but because Europe is spending less."
Daalder said he expected defence spending to return to previous levels once economies start to grow again.
"We recognise that we are all going through tough financial times. Under those circumstances the ability to spend more on defence is constrained. We do expect that once growth resumes that the level of spending on defence will go back to levels that we have seen before.
"The current ceilings should not become the new ceilings, but floors from which we will build up. We can live where we are today, not comfortably. But looking to the future, when growth picks up, so should defence spending. As the cost of the Afghan war goes down, those savings are to be reinvested in real capability."
According to MoD figures, the UK spent £4.1bn on its military effort in Afghanistan in 2011-12. This will fall to £3.6bn in 2013. The Treasury has been pushing for an early withdrawal from Afghanistan to save money and has no plans to increase spending on defence. Reported by guardian.co.uk 18 hours ago.
↧
Monti aims for Italy vote majority, pro-Europe alliance
ROME (Reuters) - Mario Monti said on Monday he was aiming to win a majority in Italy's parliamentary election in February and would seek alliances with parties agreeing with his pro-Europe agenda.
Reported by Reuters 16 hours ago.
↧
EU could offer 'second class' membership to stop Britain leaving altogether
Supporters of a federal Europe hold out the prospect of a new category of membership for the UK ahead of David Cameron's landmark EU speech.
Reported by MailOnline 9 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
