EU budget: the trillion-euro split

Πηγή: FT
By Joshua Chaffin
Nov 20 2012

Negotiations over the bloc’s budget are never easy but the current round has exposed deep ideological fissures.

The bargaining over the EU’s next long-term budget began nearly two years ago when David Cameron, the freshly minted British prime minister, stormed a summit meeting in Brussels with a surprise request.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, Nicolas Sarkozy, then the French president, and others were consumed with creating a rescue fund to stem the eurozone crisis. As the price of British acquiescence, Mr Cameron persuaded them to sign a letter pledging to rein in EU spending for the rest of the decade.

In the best of times, agreeing the long-term budget is a brutal and complex negotiation. Even diplomats practised in the arts of arm-twisting, conniving and “constructive ambiguity” say it is excruciating.

Each of the bloc’s 27 member states has its own urgent priority, each wields a veto and each must be able to go home and declare victory. The joke is that the EU only undertakes the exercise every seven years because it is so painful.

But as heads of government converge on Brussels on Thursday for a special budget summit, the process is looking more fraught than ever. The hope is to strike a deal on roughly €1,000bn in spending from 2014 to 2020 for agricultural subsidies, roads and infrastructure projects, research and development and other items – a 5 per cent increase from the current budget.

Yet the worst economic crisis since the second world war – and the resulting bailouts and austerity – have opened a faultline between the bloc’s richer and poorer countries, while hardening public opinion in many corners about the merits of EU spending.

Advocates of a bigger EU budget have adapted their arguments to the circumstances. José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president, claims the budget is no longer a butter mountain of farm subsidies but a “catalyst for growth”.

To which one sceptical diplomat replies: “Only if you’re a cow.”

After more than a year of negotiations, even optimists are bracing for the worst. “It’s do-able,” one senior diplomat says, “but the chances of failure are still 50-50.”

Such an outcome would cast legal uncertainty over public investment projects worth hundreds of billions of euros, dealing a further blow to the bloc’s already fragile economy.

It would also poison efforts to co-operate on the more pressing business of the crisis. Ms Merkel has been desperate to get a budget deal – if only so leaders can resume work on a far-reaching overhaul of economic and budget policies that she believes are crucial to safeguard the euro.

Perhaps most worrying, a budget breakdown might open deeper cracks in the overall European project.

“Let’s be honest. It’s not the money behind this, it’s ideology,” says Martin Schulz, president of the European parliament. “It’s representative of the EU today: a deep split about which direction the EU should go.”

Separating the extremes is a financial gap that once stood as wide as €200bn that Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, has been working frantically to narrow.

On one side, the wealthy countries, including the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany – who contribute the majority of the EU budget – have been fighting to tighten Brussels’ purse strings. Seven of them have formed a coalition known as the Friends of Better Spending.

Pitched against them are the Friends of Cohesion, 15 countries mostly from central and eastern Europe who are determined to keep the EU’s development funds flowing. They have enlisted the parliament, which must sign off on any deal.

On closer inspection, both camps are rife with contradictions. Finland, for example, wants to cut spending – but not for a special fund that supports “sparsely populated regions”. France, a Friend of Better Spending, is also a friend of the biggest part of the budget – agriculture spending – and fond of cohesion, too.

Yet on Thursday, all eyes will be focused on Mr Cameron, who has threatened to veto anything beyond a spending freeze. With EU popularity plunging at home, and the UK enduring its own budget cuts, Mr Cameron may have much to gain politically from making good on that threat.

On Thursday morning the prime minister is set for a private, 10-minute “confessional” meeting with Mr Van Rompuy before the negotiations begin. No doubt the rest of Europe will be straining to listen at the door.

The biggest subject of debate – and the most sensitive issue for most parties – is the budget’s size. The arguments have been complicated by rubbery figures and confusing accounting that may ultimately allow staunch opponents to hold up the same document and declare victory.

The commission has proposed €1,033bn for 2014 to 2020. But its offer included numerous off-budget items that member states would still have to fund. All in, its proposal is more like €1,091bn.

The UK – with support from the Netherlands and Sweden – has called for a real-terms freeze on payments, based on 2011 levels. That would come to as little as €886bn, but the UK has never specified a precise figure, creating an ambiguity that may allow Mr Cameron more room for manoeuvre.

The UK’s accounting has also been subject to question. Critics say 2011 was selected as the base – not 2013, the final year of the current cycle – to skew the figures downward. The UK has also chosen to focus on budget “payments”, while most other parties are negotiating on the higher ceiling of budget “commitments”. This makes a comparison difficult.

A German compromise would cap the budget at 1 per cent of the bloc’s collective gross national income, which amounts to €960bn. A proposal published last week by Mr Van Rompuy came to €1,011bn.

Mr Van Rompuy is hoping his offer will prove acceptable to budget hawks because it is about €20bn less than the current long-term budget, thus allowing them to claim victory. Others believe he will need at least another €20bn in cuts to win a deal.

If the talks fail, diplomats say there is no obvious time to reconvene, and they worry that the process may become even more difficult as political events, such as German elections, intrude.

Time is already short. Although the new budget does not begin until 2014, it takes as long as a year to draw up the related legislation that underpins EU development programmes. Without it, hundreds of billions of euros in payments will simply grind to a halt when the current budget expires in December 2013 – a disaster for governments in central and eastern Europe. “It would be a mess,” a diplomat says.

Wealthy countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, would also suffer because their budget rebates would expire. The UK is the exception since its cherished rebate, sealed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984, is guaranteed in perpetuity.

But, in a perverse feature of EU law, Mr Cameron may be the biggest loser. If there is no agreement, the 2013 budget ceiling would be repeated – plus inflation – for each successive year. The result would far exceed the UK’s freeze.

That realisation might explain why Mr Cameron has made more encouraging noises this week. Still, some EU officials have begun exploring the feasibility of something once unthinkable: creating a long-term budget without the UK.

“There are some very frustrated people,” says one diplomat.

“Most people want to work with [the UK], but they say, ‘there’s a limit’.”

Barack Obama asks eurozone to keep Greece in until after election day

US officials are worried that if Greece exits the eurozone, it will damage President's election hopes

Πηγή: The Independent

By OLIVER WRIGHT
August 24 2012

The Obama administration will pressure European governments not to let Greece fall out of the eurozone before November's Presidential elections, British Government sources have suggested.

Representatives from the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and the European Commission are due to arrive in Athens next month to assess Greece's reform efforts.

They are expected to report in time for an 8 October meeting of eurozone finance ministers which will decide on whether to disburse Greece's next €31bn aid tranche, promised under the terms of the bailout for the country.

American officials are understood to be worried that if they decide Greece has not done enough to meet its deficit targets and withhold the money, it would automatically trigger Greece's exit from the eurozone weeks before the Presidential election on 6 November.

They are urging eurozone Governments to hold off from taking any drastic action before then – fearing that the resulting market destabilisation could damage President Obama's re-election prospects. European leaders are thought to be sympathetic to the lobbying fearing that, under pressure from his party lin Congress, Mitt Romney would be a more isolationist president than Mr Obama.

The President discussed the eurozone crisis with David Cameron during a conference call on Wednesday and both welcomed statements by the European Central Bank that it was "standing firmly behind the euro".

The ECB is expected to present a plan in the next few weeks to help indebted countries like Spain and Italy by buying their government bonds.

Today, Prime Minister Antonis Samaras will travel to Berlin to meet Chancellor Angela Merkel, and to France tomorrow for talks with President François Hollande. He is asking that Greece be given more time to meet its deficit targets and implement its reforms as its economy is struggling through a fifth year of recession.

But Germany's Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said it was only months since creditors drew up a second bailout package and agreed on a massive debt write-down for Greece.

Britain is understood to have pressed the Germans to ensure that if eurozone leaders decide Greece's position is unsustainable the financial "firewall" around Spain and Italy is made stronger. Officials are worried that if Greece was to exit the eurozone, the move could result in dramatic increases in the cost of debt for other weaker eurozone members – making their financial situation unsustainable.

Cameron vows to bar Greek influx

Πηγή: FT
By Jim Pickard
July 3 2012

Britain would be prepared to close its borders to immigrants from Greece if that country was ejected from the eurozone, David Cameron has said.

The prime minister revealed that the government was “prepared to do what it takes” to prevent a large influx of Greeks coming to Britain to escape the financial downturn in their own country.

Mr Cameron made clear that such restrictions would only be imposed in the event of “extraordinary stresses” on the system. But his comments came as a surprise because EU nationals are usually entitled to work anywhere in the single market without restrictions.

“We obviously have contingency plans for all sorts of eventualities . . . the legal position is that if there are extraordinary stresses and strains, it is possible to take action to restrict migratory flows,” he said in evidence to the liaison committee of MPs. “Obviously we hope that doesn’t happen . . . I would be prepared to do what it takes.”

Such fears centre on the prospect of a further spike in Greek unemployment which could force large numbers of people to seek work elsewhere in the EU.

In May, the Home Office admitted it was planning for the potential for a large increase in immigration from not only Greece but also other EU nations because of the eurozone crisis.

Theresa May, home secretary, said at the time that work was ongoing to tackle large movements of people if the eurozone broke up in the coming months or years.

Officials are already studying data to see whether immigration from beleaguered European countries has increased, according to Ms May, although she admitted that there was not yet any evidence of increased migration.

Speaking to the liaison committee, Mr Cameron said closer political and fiscal union between eurozone nations would be a positive outcome for the British economy if it helped to damp down the eurozone crisis. Yet those countries would have to make some “very difficult decisions about giving up sovereignty . . . and areas of their democracy”.

He repeated his line that it was too early to seek a referendum on Britain’s relationship with Europe given that the EU was set for rapid change in the coming months. Stating that “big change” was happening on the continent, he said it was essential for the UK to show “tactical and strategic patience” until the current crisis had fully played out.

Tacitly admitting that the tightening eurozone bloc of 17 single currency nations could threaten Britain’s interests, he added: “The key thing here is obviously making your case with vigour and defending your interests, but it’s also about building alliances.”

Mr Cameron raised the hopes of his own eurosceptic backbenchers at the weekend by indicating that he was not opposed to a referendum on the terms of Britain’s membership of the EU, although he said he was opposed to a simple “in-out” vote.

On Tuesday, he argued that a new EU treaty could be agreed without a referendum in the UK, so long as it did not pass powers from Westminster to Brussels.

He also refused to say when the government’s proposed “audit” of the UK’s relationship with the EU would go ahead. Although he hoped it would begin before the summer, it was necessary to achieve Lib Dem agreement before its launch, he emphasised.

Evacuation warning to Britons in Greece as country prepares to sign off yet another rescue package

Warning: Foreign Secretary William Hague told Britions in Greece to prepare to leave if the country goes under

Πηγή: Mailonline
Feb 20 2012

Britons in Greece were warned yesterday they may have to be evacuated.

It comes as eurozone ministers prepare to sign off another £108billion rescue package for the crippled economy.

Foreign Secretary William Hague revealed Britons were being urged to register with the consulate as officials are updating plans to evacuate citizens ‘on a daily basis’ in case Greece goes under.

There has been widespread civil unrest in the country as the prospect of it defaulting on its loans and exiting the euro has grown.

Mr Hague said the bailout was a matter for Greece and the eurozone, but the UK wanted ‘an end to the uncertainty’.

He added: ‘We have prepared contingency plans if we need to help British nationals who are there in any way. We keep those up to date on a daily basis.’

Fellow Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt called on Britons in Greece to ‘register with a consular system so we can find them in situations of emergency’.

He added: ‘No UK national who is there at the moment is unaware of what’s happening, so we’ve got systems in place... should the worst happen.’

The prospect of further disturbances in Greece loomed again when Germany was accused of seeking to undermine democracy in Athens.



Riots: Protesters are clashing with police on a daily basis now as authorities try to keep a lid on public fury over crippling austerity initiatives



Frontline: Athens increasingly appears like a city in open revolt as people take to the streets to vent anger over swinging government cuts to welfare and benefits

Eurozone finance chiefs meeting in Brussels will consider a German proposal to ban the Greeks from receiving cash unless they delay their general election due in April.

German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble wants to keep a technocratic Greek government in place to ensure austerity measures are taken.

Under the plan, officials from the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund will establish a permanent office in Athens to exercise day-to-day control of spending.

But Eurosceptics condemned the plans.

Tory MP Peter Bone said: ‘Greece is the birthplace of democracy [but] what they’re being asked to do is sacrifice their sovereignty to stop them from going bust. It’s a recipe for disaster.’

UK: Companies paid £1,800 to meet senior ministers at networking events

The networking events by the Chemistry Club were usually hosted at the Sartoria restaurant in Mayfair, central London Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

Πηγή: The Guardian
By Leo Hickman and James Ball
Jan 24 2012

Transparency campaigners raise concerns over Chemistry Club events that were previously banned by the Cabinet Office.

Companies have been paying up to £1,800 a head to meet ministers, senior government advisers and MPs at a series of networking events previously banned by the Cabinet Office.

The chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, policing minister, Nick Herbert, and climate change minister, Lord Taylor, have all addressed the exclusive invite-only events, organised by a networking business called the Chemistry Club, and usually hosted at the high-end Sartoria restaurant in Mayfair, London.

Senior MPs from backbench committees have also attended the events, as have senior civil servants and special advisers from the Treasury, Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Department of Energy and Climate Change and other key departments.

Among the public sector employees to have attended the networking evenings is Ben Moxham, David Cameron's special adviser for energy and the environment and a former employee of BP, who was at an event on climate change in November.

The club charges senior executives from energy companies, consultancies and technology businesses between £1,300 and £1,800 per person for each event, although it invites some from the public sector to attend for free.

Senior executives from companies including BP, Shell, and the Russian oil giant Gazprom have attended the company's climate change events, while Apple, Google and Citigroup executives were among those at other networking evenings.

Transparency campaigners said the club's nature raised concerns similar to those raised in previous "cash-for-access" controversies – that those with the financial means could secure privileged access to government decision makers.

The Cabinet Office issued guidance in August 2010 to departments telling civil servants not to attend Chemistry Club events, and at the time said it had not been aware how much companies paid to attend the events,.

However, the Guardian has learned that public figures from departments and other public bodies, including the Metropolitan police and the intelligence agency GCHQ, resumed attending events after the ban, some as soon as a month after the initial guidance was issued.

The Cabinet Office now says it overturned its ruling forbidding civil servants attending after "discussions" with the club, but has not disclosed when this decision took place.

Civil servants, meanwhile, have declared their attendance at recent events on hospitality registers, frequently valuing the hospitality received at £25 or below despite the four-figure price tag for private sector attendees.

The Chemistry Club runs two main series of networking events: one, called the Climate Change Forum, focuses on energy and climate change, the other on IT and technology. The club stresses its evenings "are not social gatherings but 'work events'" that "represent an exceptionally good use of attendees' time".

A 2010 job listing for the organisation showed the emphasis the club places on making the right introductions: "The evenings are unique; prior to each private dinner every member and guest is prepared by way of a phone meeting," it said. "We gain an in-depth understanding [of] the executives' needs, resulting in relevant introductions facilitated on the night."

Mark Simon, chief executive of the Chemistry Club, said the events targeted key decision makers involved in the subject matter for invitation.

"If you look at climate change, for example, we look at who is core to the debate," he said. "There's no point inviting someone who no one wants to speak to ... The objective of the event is that they walk away having had a handful of relevant conversations.

"It's about mutuality. The civil servant wants to meet suppliers just as much as the supplier wants to meet with, say, someone at the ministry."

Simon said he could not recall if civil servants had been barred from attending the events, but his "sense is there was and then they changed it".

He believed this reversal had occurred towards the end of 2010 after discussions with the Cabinet Office on improving the transparency of the organisation, which has from last July been publishing attendees at the events on the club's website.

"If civil servants want to come, there needs to be a level of transparency," Simon said. "That's an ongoing, evolving process."

Details of attendees are now published as PDFs at the bottom of the FAQ section on the Chemistry Club's corporate site.

Simon said he had gone to see the Cabinet Office to discuss these changes. However, the Cabinet Office response to a freedom of information request from the Guardian asking for details of any meetings said it turned up no records.

The Labour MP Lisa Nandy, who has pursued further details of the Chemistry Club's activities since the Cabinet Office first discouraged officials to attend, said transparency needed to go further.

"It's been exceptionally difficult to get clear answers about who attends these meetings, and why. It's hard to avoid the impression that ministers are just paying lip service to the principle of open government. It cannot be right that lobbyists can provide access for cash," she said. "Ministers have serious questions to answer about whether lobbyists can buy influence with their government. The question remains, why would you pay thousands of pounds to network with civil servants if not to change policy or win a contract?" Tamasin Cave, of the transparency group Spinwatch, said the Chemistry Club characterised "a lobbying industry out of control".

"Lobbying is a tactical investment which affects companies' bottom line – they do not spend £1,800 for nothing," she said. Cave said the coalition's plans to increase lobbying transparency would do nothing to shed more light on events such as these.

"The government's proposals on lobbying are a joke," she added. "They do not allow us to see the impact that lobbyists have on the decisions this government makes. What we urgently need is a proper register showing who is lobbying whom, what they are lobbying for, and crucially how much money they are spending on influencing decision makers"

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "The Chemistry Club has now changed the way it operates to provide for greater transparency around its operations and attendance enabling civil servants to attend events should they wish to do so. Civil servants' attendance at such events must be declared in departments, and will be published for the most senior civil servants."

The complete list of attendees is available on the Guardian’s datablog.

Inside story of the UK's secret mission to beat Gaddafi

Πηγή: BBC
By Mark Urban
Jan 18 2012

British efforts to help topple Colonel Gaddafi were not limited to air strikes. On the ground - and on the quiet - special forces soldiers were blending in with rebel fighters. This is the previously untold account of the crucial part they played.

The British campaign to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi's regime had its public face - with aircraft dropping bombs, or Royal Navy ships appearing in Libyan waters, but it also had a secret aspect.

My investigations into that covert effort reveal a story of practically-minded people trying to get on with the job, while all the time facing political and legal constraints imposed from London.

In the end though, British special forces were deployed on the ground in order to help the UK's allies - the Libyan revolutionaries often called the National Transitional Council or NTC. Those with a knowledge of the programme insist "they did a tremendous job" and contributed to the final collapse of the Gaddafi regime.

Multiple radios indicate sophisticated co-ordination of forces

The UK's policy for intervention evolved in a series of fits and starts, being changed at key points by events on the ground. The arguments about how far the UK should go were thrashed out in a series of meetings of the National Security Council at Downing Street. Under the chairmanship of Prime Minister David Cameron, its key members were:

• Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards
• Defence Secretary Liam Fox
• Foreign Secretary William Hague

Mr Cameron's chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, was a key voice in urging action following the Libyan revolution in last February, say Whitehall insiders.

The first significant involvement of British forces inside Libya was a rescue mission mounted just a couple of weeks after the rising against Gaddafi broke out. On 3 March, Royal Air Force C130 aircraft were sent to a desert airstrip at Zilla in the south of the country to rescue expatriate oil workers. Many had been threatened by gunmen and bandits.

This airlift of 150 foreigners, including about 20 Britons, to Valletta airport in Malta went smoothly, despite one of the aircraft being hit by ground fire soon after taking off.

Accompanying the flights were about two dozen men from C Squadron of the Special Boat Service (SBS), who helped secure the landing zone. It was a short-term and discrete intervention that saved the workers from risk of abduction or murder, and caused little debate in Whitehall.

Events, though, were moving chaotically and violently onwards, with the Libyan armed forces breaking up and Benghazi emerging as the centre of opposition. The government sought to open contacts with the National Transitional Council both overtly and covertly.

It was the undercover aspect of this relationship that almost brought Britain's wider attempt to help the revolution to grief. The Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, sought to step up communications with some of its contacts in the opposition. It was decided to send a pair of the service's people to a town not far from Benghazi to meet one of these Libyans.

MI6, say people familiar with what happened, decided to avoid the Royal Navy frigate in Benghazi at the time, or any other obvious symbol of national power as the base for this meeting. Instead they opted to be flown from Malta into Libya at night by Chinook helicopter in order to meet local "fixers" who would help them get to the meeting.

In planning this operation, SIS chose to use a highly sensitive arm of the special forces, E Squadron, in order to look after its people. Six members of E Squadron, which is recruited from all three Tier 1 units (SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment) duly boarded the Chinook to "mind" the intelligence people.

They were equipped with a variety of weapons and secure communications gear. In keeping with E Squadron's sensitive role, they were in plain clothes or black jumpsuits (accounts vary), and carried a variety of passports.

The plan unravelled almost immediately. The landing of their helicopter aroused local curiosity.

The Libyan revolution, like many others, was accompanied by a good deal of paranoia about foreign mercenaries and spies, and the British party could not have appeared more suspicious. They were detained and taken to Benghazi, the men on the ground having decided that to open fire would destroy the very bridge-building mission they were engaged in.

This debacle in Benghazi rapidly became even more embarrassing, as the Gaddafi government released an intercepted phone call in which a British diplomat pleaded with the NTC for the team's release.

As a result of what happened with E Squadron, those who would advocate using special forces to help topple the regime were sidelined for months. It also caused great difficulties for MI6, which had plans to turn some key figures in Gaddafi's inner circle.


Ambassador Richard Northern's phone call was played on Libyan State TV

When, on 19 March, Colonel Gaddafi's tanks were bombed as they entered Benghazi, the conflict entered a dramatically different phase. High profile military action was under way, and the leaders of the UK, US, and France were increasingly committed to the overthrow of the Libyan leader.

But the means that could be used would be tightly limited as a result both of the unhappy experience of Iraq, and the terms of the UN resolution that had authorised the air action.

Under UN Security Council Resolution 1973, countries were authorised to use force "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". The text noted that the measures used to achieve this aim excluded "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".

The resolution authorised force but its limitations, both in avoiding any mention of support to forces fighting Col Gaddafi's army and apparently in ruling out "boots on the ground", defined much of British government thinking.

Yet key figures in the Downing Street discussions were convinced that air strikes alone would not achieve the result they wanted. At sessions of the National Security Council, Gen Richards and Mr Fox made the case for planning to provide training and equipment for the revolutionary forces of the NTC.

At a meeting near the end of March, we have been told, authorisation was given to take certain steps to develop the NTC's embryonic ground forces. This involved the immediate dispatch of a small advisory team, and the longer-term development of a "train and equip" project. Ministers were advised, say those familiar with the discussion, that this second part of the plan would take at least three months to implement.

When half a dozen British officers arrived at a seaside hotel in Benghazi at the beginning of April, they were unarmed and their role was strictly limited. They had been told to help the NTC set up a nascent defence ministry, located in a commandeered factory on the outskirts of the city.

The first and most basic task of the advisory team was to get the various bands of Libyan fighters roaring around in armed pick-up trucks under some sort of central co-ordination. As reporters had discovered, most of these men had little idea of what they were doing, and soon panicked if they thought Col Gaddafi's forces were attacking or outflanking them.

There were a number of legal issues preventing them giving more help. Some Whitehall lawyers argued that any type of presence on the ground was problematic. Legal doubts were raised about arming the NTC or targeting Col Gaddafi.

Misrata rebel using a laser range-finder - can be used to adjust artillery fire and co-ordinate Nato air strikes

Once the air operation was put on a proper Nato footing, these issues became even more vexed, insiders say, with the alliance saying it would not accept men on the ground "directing air strikes" in a way that some newspapers, even in late spring, were speculating was already happening.

The British government's desire to achieve the overthrow of Gaddafi while accommodating the legal sensitivities registered by various Whitehall departments led to some frustration among those who were meant to make the policy work.

"It just seemed to me an unnecessarily muddled way of going about a business that we all knew the underlying aims of," said one. "It was almost as if we have lost the ability to define a clear objective and go for it."

However, the accidental bombing of NTC columns by Nato aircraft in early April provided those who wanted more direct assistance with a powerful argument. British and French officers on the ground were permitted to co-ordinate more closely with the NTC for the purposes of "deconfliction" or preventing such accidental clashes from happening again.

Under the deconfliction rubric, British advisers made their way to places like Misrata, then under siege, where the RAF was focusing its air strikes. The stage was set then for months of bombing which, as it progressed, both exhausted the stocks of precision weapons available to some Nato allies and the patience of many politicians for what was going on. Insiders say that, discreetly, they were soon doing more than deconfliction, actually co-ordinating certain Nato air attacks.

Taking as his cue the March approval in principal for a training programme, Gen Richards had started a series of low profile visits to Doha, the capital of Qatar.

This gulf emirate had taken a leading role in backing the NTC, and its defence chief was by June brokering an agreement with the UK and France to provide material back-up as well as training for the NTC.


The fall of Gaddafi told through maps

France was to prove more forward-leaning than the UK in this, and by August was providing weapons to NTC units in the Nefusa mountains of western Libya. The UK, meanwhile, had agreed to focus its efforts in the east of the country. It was as part of this new effort that British special forces returned to Libya.

Although plenty of people in Whitehall still remembered the March debacle, it was agreed to allow a limited number of British advisers to take a direct part in training and mentoring NTC units in Libya. Sources say the number of men sent from D Squadron of 22 SAS Regiment was capped at 24. They were performing their mission by late August.

While France and Qatar were ready to provide weapons directly, the UK was not. However, this made little practical difference since the SAS was operating closely with Qatar special forces who had reportedly delivered items such as Milan anti-tank missiles.

Anti-tank missile in Sirte, of the type believed to have been supplied by Qataris

There were some suggestions from Whitehall that the training itself should be conducted outside Libya in order to remain within the narrow interpretation of the UN resolution, but the SAS was apparently soon present at a base in southern Libya.

During the months that this project had taken to come to fruition, the slow grinding down of Gaddafi's forces by air attack had continued. Soon after the foreign trainers arrived, NTC units swept into Tripoli.

Some people close to the Libyan revolution say that the Qatari chief of defence staff claimed credit for coming up with the strategy of pushing simultaneously towards the Libyan capital from different directions. Certainly, the foreign special forces on the ground played a role in co-ordinating the different columns.

The SAS had meanwhile strayed beyond its training facility, with single men or pairs accompanying the NTC commanders that they had been training back to their units. They dressed as Libyans and blended in with the units they mentored, says someone familiar with the operation.

There had been concerns that they would be spotted by the press, but this did not happen. "We have become a lot better at blending in," says someone familiar with the D Squadron operation. "Our people were able to stay close to the NTC commanders without being compromised."

Instead, as the revolutionaries fought their way into Gaddafi's home town of Sirte, they were assisted by a handful of British and other special forces. Members of the Jordanian and United Arab Emirates armies had fallen in behind the Qataris too.

When, on 20 October, Gaddafi was finally captured and then killed by NTC men, it followed Nato air strikes on a convoy of vehicles carrying leading members of the former regime as they tried to escape from Sirte early in the morning. Had British soldiers on the ground had a hand in this? Nobody will say yet.

In keeping with its long standing policies on special forces and MI6 operations, Whitehall has refrained from public comment about the nature of assistance on the ground.

Speaking at a public event late last year, though, Gen Richards commented that the NTC forces "were the land element, an 'army' was still vital". He also noted that "integrating the Qataris, Emiratis and Jordanians into the operation was key". He did not, however, allude to the presence of more than 20 British operators on the ground.

Last October the Chief of the Qatar Defence Staff revealed that "hundreds" of his troops has been on the ground in Libya.

British sources agree Qatar played a leading role - and accept it put more soldiers in than the UK - but question whether the number was this large. Around the more secret parts of Whitehall, the suggestion is that the number committed on the ground by all nations probably did not exceed a couple of hundred.

As for Britain's decision finally to deploy an SAS squadron, "they made a fantastic difference", argues one insider.

It is part of the essence of troops of this kind that they often operate in secrecy, providing their political masters with policy options that they might not wish to own up to publicly.

But given that the UK's earlier relationship with Col Gaddafi and his intelligence services caused great embarrassment, it could be that attention will one day focus more closely on British assistance to the NTC, particularly if the Libyan revolution comes unstuck.
---

Secret unit within the special forces

The existence of E Squadron is well known within the special forces community but has not hitherto been discussed publicly. It was formed five years ago to work closely with the intelligence service MI6, and is mainly involved in missions where maximum discretion is required, say Whitehall insiders.

Its role as a small, handpicked force operating with MI6 makes it the modern-day successor to the shadowy cell sometimes referred to as the Increment.

While the existence of teams of this kind is a gift for thriller writers looking to insert a hit team of hardened SAS men into their plotline, the reality of E Squadron's operations has been a little more prosaic.

Last March's debacle, in which six member of the squadron were caught in Libya, was highly embarrassing. The reason for their presence, escorting two people from MI6, gives a clue to the facilitating role they often play in foreign intelligence operations in risky places.

After 9/11, with major military commitments in Afghanistan and then Iraq, MI6 stepped up its intelligence-gathering in many places that had hitherto been off the radar or considered too dangerous.

It was often backed up by UK Special Forces, but the competing demands on them to support special operations in Afghanistan and Iraq eventually led to the creation of E Squadron.

According to special forces people, E Squadron is a composite organisation formed from selected SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment operators. It is not technically part of the SAS or SBS, but at the disposal of the Director of Special Forces and MI6.

The squadron often operates in plain clothes and with the full range of national support, such as false identities, at its disposal.

Whitehall sources suggest E Squadron was prepared to launch a rescue of a British citizen kidnapped in the Sahara in 2009, but could not obtain political clearance to do so before he was murdered by the hostage takers.

---

How long will Britain stay in the EU?

Πηγή: FT
By Philip Stephens
Dec 9 2011

There’s fog in the channel: the continent is isolated again. This well-worn adage has often described the British attitude to Europe. So it was at the latest European Union summit. David Cameron’s veto of a new EU treaty on fiscal union leaves Britain to sail under clear blue skies. Things will not turn out like that, of course. They never do.

Whichever end of the telescope one looks through, the summit was a turning point in Britain’s relationship with its neighbours. It harked back to the EU’s founding conference in Messina when Britain first decided to step aside. Now, like then, the prime minister of the day has decided Britain can better make its way in the world without the encumbrance of its continental partners.

Governments and corporations beyond Europe must now ask themselves a question which, for all the occasional spats with Brussels, has hitherto seemed unthinkable. Will Britain still be part of the EU five or 10 years from now? I am not at all sure. Why, one banker asked on Friday, would companies selling into Europe now invest in Britain?

Through one end of the telescope, Mr Cameron’s veto was the moment Britain signalled the beginning of a long goodbye to Europe; through the other it was Europe bidding its farewell to Britain.

The effect is the same either way. Ever since it negotiated the single currency opt out at Maastricht nearly 20 years ago Britain has managed by dint of power and skilful diplomacy to be both within and without the European club. Mr Cameron’s decision to leave an empty chair at negotiations for a fiscal union in the eurozone marks the end of that road.

It is important to insert a caveat here. The presumption of everyone in the room in Brussels was that the eurozone countries will indeed succeed in saving the single currency and build alongside it a more integrated political union.

That enterprise could yet fail. Some will say after the limited progress made at the summit on rescue plan, the odds have now stacked against the euro. If it were to fall apart, so too would all other ambitions among the 17 eurogroup members. Assuming it does not, however, Britain has never looked so isolated.

Mr Cameron, of course, can expect hearty cheers from his Conservative MPs when he reports on the summit to the House of Commons. Some in Whitehall are already whispering that it was fear of being jeered by his own backbenchers that drove Mr Cameron into a corner in Brussels. Either way many Tory sceptics will exult in Britain’s isolation.

The prime minister should enjoy the applause while he can. The government now faces a ratchet effect. For the growing band of hard-line Tory sceptics this is just the beginning. Now that Britain has placed itself fully outside the EU’s core economic project, why not reopen negotiations on everything else?

There is logic to this position. If 20 or so other European nations succeed in building a political union, it is hard to imagine a place for at best a semi-detached Britain. As for protecting the interests of the City of London from the feared depredations of Paris and Frankfurt, that will scarcely be achieved with Britain locked out of negotiations on the future shape of European financial regulation.

What, some will ask, of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats? Surely Mr Clegg, as Mr Cameron’s coalition partner and a powerful advocate of British engagement in Europe, will act as a counter to the sceptics. One might have hoped so. But like Britain in Europe, Mr Clegg has thus far been left outside the room.

UK: Disorder no excuse to clamp down on Internet

Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague makes listens on stage during the opening session at the London Cyberspace Conference in London, Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011

Πηγή: AP
By JILL LAWLESS

Nov 2 2011

LONDON (AP) — Governments must not clamp down on Internet and mobile phone networks at times of social unrest, the British government said Tuesday — weeks after suggesting police should do just that during riots.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the fact that criminals and terrorists can exploit digital networks is not "justification for states to censor their citizens."

And Prime Minister David Cameron said governments "must not use cybersecurity as an excuse for censorship or to deny their people the opportunities that the Internet represents."

After riots spread across England in August — with the help of instant digital communications — Cameron briefly raised the idea of giving British authorities greater power to disrupt the use of cell phone services or social networking tools during civil unrest.

Cameron and Hague spoke as a two-day international cybersecurity conference opened Tuesday in London. Their stance contrasts with calls by Russia and China for tighter regulation of the Internet through binding international treaties.

Britain supports the less proscriptive idea of internationally agreed online "norms of behavior." That approach was backed by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who warned against imposing a "repressive global code" for the Internet.

"What citizens do online should not, as some have suggested, be decreed solely by groups of governments making decisions for them somewhere on high," Biden said in a speech delivered by videolink from Washington.

Biden said the U.S. opposed "an international legal instrument that would lead to exclusive government control over Internet resources, institutions and content and national barriers on the free flow of information online. "

The conference is being held amid a rapid rise in cyber attacks on governments and businesses — from criminals, terrorists and other states.

Cameron said cybercrime cost Britain 27 billion pounds ($43 million) a year, and that the country faced daily "attempts on an industrial scale to steal valuable information from individuals and companies."

The prime minister told the conference that governments "cannot leave cyberspace open to the criminals and the terrorists that threaten our security and our prosperity but at the same time we cannot just go down the heavy-handed route."

"The balance we have got to strike is between freedom and a free-for-all," he said.

Hague said Britain rejected "the view that government suppression of the Internet, phone networks and social media at times of unrest is acceptable."

The British government took a tougher line after riots flared across England in August, the country's worst social unrest in decades.

Police accused young criminals of using Facebook, Twitter and Blackberry's instant messaging service to coordinate looting sprees. Several people have been convicted of inciting violence using social media, including two men jailed for four years each for trying to start riots with Facebook postings.

Cameron said after the riots that the government would look at whether cell phone services and social networks could be disrupted during disorder. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. were summoned for crisis talks with senior government officials.

After meeting the media firms, the government said it would not seek new powers to shut down Facebook, Twitter or BlackBerry Messenger in times of crisis, but would "build on the existing relationships and cooperation to crack down on the networks being used for criminal behavior."

Civil liberties groups said Britain and other Western governments should take care not to fall into a double standard.

"It's very easy to defend the case of black and white — human rights against dictatorships around the world," said John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship. "But as soon as our own Western-style stability of the state is called into question, well then freedom of expression is expendable.

"There should be one rule for all, including Western governments."

David Cameron clashes with France's Sarkozy over euro

David Cameron: "Greater fiscal and economic integration in the eurozone is inevitable"

Πηγή: BBC
Octr 23 2011

Prime Minister David Cameron has clashed with French President Nicolas Sarkozy over the UK's involvement in discussions about the eurozone crisis.

Mr Sarkozy believes the final talks on Wednesday should be limited to nations which actually use the euro.

Mr Cameron said all EU leaders should be present to debate issues which could affect them in one way or another.

The clash came on the day when leaders agreed to change the Union's treaty if necessary to help resolve the crisis.

EU president Herman Van Rompuy said after a day of emergency talks in Brussels that members would "explore the possibility of limited change".

Mr Cameron said he had sought assurances to protect the UK's interest if there is change.

All EU leaders are now set to attend the final meeting on Wednesday, which was originally meant to be attended by only the 17 countries that use the euro.

That prompted French leader Mr Sarkozy to speak out. He said he was sick of reading in newspapers about advice Mr Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne were offering the eurozone.

At one point in the exchanges, Mr Sarkozy was quoted as telling Mr Cameron: "We are sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do."

On Sunday morning the leaders of all the European Union's 27 members held talks about the Greek debt crisis, recapitalising banks, and bolstering the bailout fund.

This was followed in the afternoon by a separate meeting of the 17 nations that use the euro.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Van Rompuy said that altering the treaty was under discussion. Although no proposed details were given, any change is likely to involve closer fiscal and economic cooperation.

"The aim is deepening our economic convergence and strengthening economic discipline," Mr Van Rompuy said.

He said the words "limited change" meant "not a general overhaul of the institutional architecture".

He added: We also said that we would need the agreement of all the 27 (member states) before we can decide on a treaty change."'Progress needed'

Mr Cameron said he had secured safeguards to ensure that Britain's national interest within the EU was protected as the eurozone nations moved towards greater fiscal and economic integration.

He told a news conference: "This must not be at the expense of Britain's national interest. I have secured a commitment today that we must safeguard the interests of countries that want to stay outside the euro, particularly with respect to the integrity of the single market for all 27 countries of the EU."

The prime minister said the EU needed to build on the progress of the work done on Saturday on recapitalising the banks.

Nicolas Sarkozy disagreed with David Cameron over who attends Wednesday's summit

"More progress is needed. I think we are beginning to see the elements of a strong package coming together," he said.

Mr Cameron has cancelled visits to Japan and New Zealand this week in order to attend Wednesday's summit.

Speaking alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a joint press conference on Sunday, Mr Sarkozy said "a quite broad agreement was taking shape on the reinforcement" of the bailout fund.

Mrs Merkel said a French idea for the fund to acquire a banking licence was dead, leaving a mix of plans to use the fund to offer insurance to eurozone bond holders, and moves to create a "fund within the fund" that would be topped up by some of the main emerging nations.

On Saturday eurozone finance ministers struck a provisional deal that will see banks raise more than 100bn euros (£87bn) in new capital to shield them against possible losses to indebted countries.

It is conditional on a wider accord, including a write-down of Greek debt.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the 100bn euros agreed in the deal will be provided to banks by commercial investors, national governments and the EU's bailout fund.

Debt-laden Greece has been bailed out - twice - along with the Irish Republic and Portugal.

The eurozone is working on a third package for Greece, as well as a solution that could help the much bigger economies of Spain and Italy, which are faltering.

Five days to save world economy from catastrophe: Britain's warning to Europe as leaders battle to save the Euro

Talks: David Cameron will be in Brussels to try and broker a deal aimed at preventing a collapse of the single currency

Πηγή: Daily Mail
By JAMES CHAPMAN and HUGO DUNCAN
Oct 22 2011

Britain will tell European leaders they have five days to save the world economy from catastrophe, after it emerged that the continent's banks could need another £110billion to protect themselves from potential debt defaults in the eurozone.

David Cameron is due in Brussels tomorrow for talks with 26 other countries over a deal aimed at preventing a collapse of the single currency and stemming the bloc's debt crisis that threatens to drag the UK back into recession.

A serious rift has opened up between France and Germany over a rescue deal, meaning a second summit of eurozone leaders will be held on Wednesday. Britain believes that if a deal is not struck in the 'critical' days ahead, market chaos will ensue.

Mr Cameron is set to agree to new rules affecting the banking sector at this weekend's summit, which will require those exposed to the debts of stricken states such as Greece to hold more cash to shield themselves against potential defaults.

Banks are expected to be given a deadline by which they must amass at least £70billion - though some put the figure as high as £110billion - from the markets.

If they fail to meet the deadline, public sector bailouts will be ordered.

At Wednesday's meeting, eurozone members will have to increase massively a bailout fund for debt-stricken economies and accept huge losses related to Greek debt, amid growing acceptance that the country cannot accept further austerity measures and has no hope of paying its own way.

Chancellor George Osborne, who is meeting his fellow finance ministers in Brussels today, said yesterday: ‘The coming days will be critical for resolving the crisis in the eurozone.

‘A resolution to the eurozone crisis would be the biggest boost to growth in Britain and around the world.’




Warning: Ratings agency Standard & Poor's said Europe must raise hundreds of billions of euros to protect its banks and prop up debt-ridden countries

Ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has warned that Europe must raise hundreds of billions of euros to protect its banks and prop up debt-ridden countries. The agency’s report underlines the scale of the task facing European Union leaders in a weekend thrown into disarray by a row between France and Germany.

France wants to turn the £383billion European Financial Stability Facility, the eurozone’s bailout fund, into a bank so it can borrow from the European Central Bank – a move Germany has blocked.

Leaders are also wrangling over the size of the losses that banks and other private sector investors should take in relation to their loans to Greece.

S&P said that 21 banks would need to raise more than £110billion to shield themselves from future losses, while the war chest to protect entire countries would need to be boosted by £250billion.

Officials do not expect British banks to be affected, though some experts fear that the part-nationalised Royal Bank of Scotland would need another cash injection in the event of a eurozone meltdown.

Cameron will NOT support a referendum on UK membership even if MPs vote in favour of one

Battle: Mr Cameron and his wife Samantha leave their vehicle as they arrive at party conference

Πηγή: mailonline
By JAMES CHAPMAN

Oct 3 2011

David Cameron is struggling to contain a rising tide of Tory Euroscepticism after insisting he would not support a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

The Prime Minister said he did want to claw back powers from Brussels, but suggested it would have to wait for negotiations over a new treaty which might be several years away.

He signalled to around 120 Conservative MPs in a new Eurosceptic grouping that the debt crisis engulfing the eurozone and threatening to drag the British economy down must take priority.

‘I don’t want Britain to leave the EU,’ he said. ‘I think it’s the wrong answer for Britain. People in rooms up and down Britain aren’t thinking, gosh, if only we could have a treaty change in Europe.

‘They’re thinking, get the economy moving, get jobs going in this economy. That’s what my leadership’s about, that’s what this conference is all about.’ Ministers appear increasingly concerned that Labour might shift its position and back the idea of an EU referendum. That would put the Tory leadership in a highly awkward position, since the Liberal Democrats promised an ‘in-out’ referendum at the last election.

It emerged yesterday that MPs are to hold a vote on an EU referendum in the next few months. The debate will be triggered by the Government’s new ‘e-petitions’ scheme, which requires MPs to consider topics if 100,000 people demand it.

Rebuttal: William Hague, pictured arriving at the conference, agrees that the public should be denied a referendum at this time

The Commons back-bench business committee is expected to set a date before Christmas for a one-day debate and vote on a referendum on EU membership. Though it will not be binding on the Government, the Prime Minister will come under huge pressure if the vote is carried.

Labour MP Natascha Engel, who chairs the committee, said: ‘The EU today is completely different from the one the British people voted to join in the 1975 referendum. It is time to examine the position again.

‘People in pubs and shops all over Britain are discussing Britain’s membership of the EU and it is time they openly debated it too.’

Tory Dominic Raab, a member of the new ‘euro-realist’ grouping, said if some of the EU’s ‘hare-brained’ ideas for further integration are realised, Britain would have to have a referendum.

But Mr Cameron said: ‘It’s not our view that there should be an in-out referendum.

‘What most people want in this country is not actually to leave the EU, but to reform the EU and make sure that the balance of powers between a country like Britain and Europe is better.’

Mr Cameron said he wanted to fulfil the Tory election pledge of seeking to repatriate some powers from Brussels, but insisted he would not exploit the current crisis in the eurozone to do so.

‘I have been very clear that I think we have given too many powers to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that, but right now that is not on the immediate agenda.’ The Prime Minister insisted that the collapse of the European single currency would be ‘very bad’ for Britain. ‘I will always defend the British national interest. I think our interest is to be in the EU, because we need that single market. We are a trading nation, it is vital for our economic future.’

Foreign Secretary William Hague said: ’Of course we will look at any motion, but we won’t be in favour of holding now an in-out referendum on Europe.

Strength in numbers: Many marchers are calling for a national strike to try to bring down David Cameron

‘At a time of economic difficulty to actually say to people, instead of getting everything growing in our economy, we are going to spend our time on an in-out referendum which will create uncertainty for businesses in Britain – that wouldn’t be a very sensible course of action.’

Mr Hague added: ‘This is a party committed to the return of powers from the EU to the UK. We are constrained by being in a coalition on that subject, but that is something that I still believe in. It may well be one of the dividing lines in the general election.’

The Government appears to have decided to pick one or two fights with Brussels to try to appease Eurosceptic sentiment.

Campaign posters used by the Tories over the years are sold as memorabilia on a stall inside the Conservative party conference

Battle: As is usual in conference season parties sell items, like these mugs, criticising their rivals

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, one of the Cabinet’s arch-Eurosceptics, will today tell the EU that Britain will not accept its latest diktat on welfare tourism, for instance.

‘Let me reassure you, that at a time when the British people are tightening their belts, and the European Commission orders us to open our doors to benefit tourists and pay them benefits when they arrive here, I have a simple message for them: no, no, no,’ he will tell the conference. That is a deliberate echo of Margaret Thatcher, who famously said ‘no, no, no’ to further European integration in the dying days of her premiership.
Last night Mr Duncan Smith said the European Commission’s insistence that Britain pays full out-of-work benefits to new immigrants was ‘madness’ which would cost more than £2.5billion a year.

He revealed he is drumming up support for a retrospective change to EU treaties to prevent Brussels interfering in domestic welfare issues.

The Islamization of British Police

Πηγή: Euronews
By Henrik R. Clausen

Sep. 24 2011

For those not aware of the political nature of Islam, it might come across as just a cultural amusement to see Islam still deeper entrenched in the British police force. Other countries, like Denmark and France, insist that religion has no role to play in policing. Not so in Britain.

On September 24th 2011, the Mayor of London sponsored an Eid festival at Trafalgar Square. One of the exhibitions was of how Islam is being integrated into the British police force, a banner presenting key elements of this. Since the police (by definition) is a security force for all British citizens, formally having the objective of upholding British law equally for all citizens, it is meaningful to put the mission statement of the Association of Muslim Police (AMP) under some scrutiny:

First the classical band used on police uniforms, now laced with classical Islamic green. A symbolic way of saying that the intention of AMP is to change the police force. This is corroborated by the first line of the banner, which reads:

“Muslims making a difference to policing”

That's clear enough, and anyone able to parse a straight English sentence will get the meaning of this. The intention is to change policing as such, not merely to protect the rights of police officers who happen to be Muslims.

The mission statement on the banner reads on:

The Association of Muslim Police (AMP) aims to:

Assist Muslims in the police force to observe their faith and to promote the understanding of Islam within the police force and the wider community.

That's clear enough: The want police officers who happen to be Muslims to be more observant of their faith, to promote Islam within the force – as well as outside. This is also known as 'enforcing' and 'proselytizing'. This is not about furthering the self-determination of the individual officers, it is about making them more observant of Islam and follow Islamic practices while on duty.

Further:

Provide a forum for Muslims in the police and support their religious and welfare needs, with a view to improving their immediate working environment and retaining them in service.

Put more bluntly, this is a pressure group working to introduce Islamic rules into the police force, promoting the strange concept of “religious needs”, changing the working environment to be in line with Islamic demands, with an implicit threat that Muslims should not work as police officers unless these demands are met by the force.

Assist in the recruitment and retention of Muslim staff [...]

Now, one might wonder what this discrimination on religious grounds is all about, since usually discrimination is considered a major Evil. But it is surprisingly simple to come across a plausible explanation:

Since the police is an important force in society, having a strong Muslim presence there is an enabler of Islamic codes of conduct, also known as Islamic law, within the force and in the community. How to better implement and protect Islamic law in society than through the very organization that is created to enforce the law? Islamist infiltration of the British police force would be a serious matter indeed. Hopefully the force and the politicians have enforced suitable measures to make sure that this can under no circumstances be the case.

The last line of text reads:

[...] and to assist in the creation of a fair and just working environment for all cultural minorities.

While sounding friendly, this line implies that the working environment for “cultural minorities” is not fair or just at present, a subtle accusation of what would be called 'racism' – so subtly worded that few would identify it and yet fewer object to it.

The 'assisting' would constitute of advice on how to change the police force in order not to offend “cultural minorities”, also known as “sensitivity training”. This, unfortunately, tends to render the police force ineffective in cases where normal police procedure – like the use of sniffer dogs – violates religious law stating that dogs are 'unclean', and the like. Whenever there is a clash between secular and religious law, it is easy to make a qualified guess as to which side AMP will be on.

Before writing this off as 'speculative', it is instructive to see this conflict of interest play out in practice. The National Association of Muslim Police in 2010 rejected the claim that Islam can be blamed for terror attacks. This statement not only constitutes a mockery of available documentation, the stated motivation of the terrorists, and the plight of the victims of Islamic terrorism. It also casts doubt over the ability or willingness of the Muslim police to honestly investigate cases of Islamic terrorism.


Integration Islamic symbols into the British police uniform

AMP, as stated above, consists of Muslims bent on making a difference to policing. This is an ambitious goal which requires resources, and fortunately for AMP, the Home Office is gladly underwriting the project by granting the Muslim police group 15 times more funding than the equivalent Christian group. More at Undhimmi.com

Details like having a page on the Metropolitan Police web site as well as an official Metropolitan Police email address endows the Association of Muslim Police with a legitimacy quite surprising to citizens of more secular countries.

There is one more item on the banner worth commenting upon, namely the photo of the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem. This has become a banner image for Islamists desiring to regain control of Jerusalem. A rather strange choice for an organization officially only interested in changing the policing in Britain. Then, would anyone seriously expect a Muslim organization to fly the Union Jack on their banner? That would, after all, signal loyalty to secular law and Great Britain, potentially problematic for pious Muslims.

Other hypothetical problems, such as the conflicts of interest between Shariah and secular British law, or the risk that the Muslim police might later turn into an actual Islamic police force, are left as exercises for the reader to ponder. He might also ask his politicians a critical question or two on the subject, including the funding and other issues mentioned above.

Labour’s embarrassing immigration secrets revealed

The secret reports show that more than 15 per cent of people coming from Bulgaria and Romania were claiming out-of-work benefits

Πηγή: The Telegraph
By Patrick Hennessy
Sep. 24 2011

Reports kept under wraps by Labour showing that immigrants who came to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria had low education levels and were more likely to claim out-of-work benefits are to be released for the first time by ministers.

The figures are contained in five separate controversial studies commissioned by the last Labour government but never published - amid claims the party wanted to avoid a damaging row about its record before last year’s general election.

Ministers accused Labour of a “disturbing cover up” and promised to publish the reports - which cost the taxpayer a total of £165,000 and have now been seen by The Sunday Telegraph - in full within days.

The documents also contain revelations that immigrants from all countries into Britain are more likely to be out of work than the native population - and are less likely to engage in any form of “civic participation.”

More than one third of London’s population, moreover, has now been born outside the UK.

The release will turn the spotlight once again on the party’s controversial record on immigration. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, used a weekend interview to admit the party had “got things wrong” on the issue.

Up until 2008 the Labour government was criticised for effectively operating an “open door” policy which saw a massive rise in the number of visas, work permits and extended residency being granted.

Gordon Brown’s government then introduced a new “points based” system which was designed to make it harder for non-skilled people to come to Britain from outside the European Union.

However, particular controversy surrounded the rules governing immigration from countries which joined the EU during the first decade of this century - which included Bulgaria and Romania (which joined in 2007) and Poland (2004).

Labour ministers repeatedly promised that restrictions would be placed on those coming in from Eastern Europe in order to “manage” numbers and protect jobs for British workers.

However, the secret reports show that 27 per cent of people coming from Bulgaria and Romania had “low education levels” while as of 2009 more than 15 per cent of them were claiming out-of-work benefits.

The documents, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) reveal that immigrants from the two countries are more likely to claim unemployment-related benefits than either non-immigrants or other migrant groups in Britain.

A report said that despite the implementation of a “cap” on numbers, the migration rate into Britain from Romania and Bulgaria increased significantly after the countries joined the EU in 2007.

Meanwhile, migrants from the two countries were shown to be more likely to have four children or more than people coming to Britain from elsewhere - placing a significant strain on the education system, particularly in London where over half the Bulgarians and Romanians who came settled.

More than three in every 100 migrants from Bulgaria and Romania had five children or more.

One of the five reports, Identifying Social and Economic Push and Pull Factors for Migration to the UK by Bulgarian and Romanian Nationals, showed that while Bulgaria’s and Romania’s population declined between 2004 and 2010, Britain’s increased considerably.

During that period the two countries’ unemployment rate fell, while the UK’s rose.

Another report on overall immigration, The Socio-Economic Integration of Migrants, claimed: “Immigrants in the UK exhibit lower employment rates than natives....Immigrants are on average less likely than natives to engage in any form civic participation.”

A further document, Drivers of International Migration, stated: “The increase in immigration into the UK since the mid 1990s is entirely explained by a rise in the number of foreign-born people migrating to the UK from abroad, rather than by returning UK-born people.”

At the start of the 1980s the key annual “net immigration” figure for the UK was minus 42,000 - meaning tens of thousands more people left Britain every year than came here.

By 1992-95 this figure had gone up to plus 9,200 - while by the period between 2004 and 2007 it had mushroomed to plus 178,000 a year.

Britain’s population was slated to increase by more than four million to 65.6 million between 2008 and 2018, while by 2008 over one third of London’s population (34 per cent) was born outside Britain.

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, said: “This is another disturbing cover-up by a Labour Party that failed on immigration and then tried to bury the truth.

“‘This Government is bringing immigration under control to restore public confidence in the system left broken by Labour.”

The Coalition’s policy of putting an overall cap on immigrant numbers from outside the EU is designed to reduce net migration to Britain significantly.

David Cameron said in a speech in April that it should be “in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.”

Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, said: “We have cut down on sham marriages, we have brought in a variety of policies which curb the number of people coming into the country and then overstay.

And we will continue to look at how we can further improve the balance between the people who at value coming into the country and those who do not.”

Labour’s record on immigration sparked bitter debates before last year’s election, exemplified by unguarded “bigoted woman” comments during the campaign by Mr Brown, on an open microphone, about Gillian Duffy, a Rochdale grandmother, when she questioned the former prime minister on it.

In an interview this weekend Ms Cooper admitted: "We did get things wrong on immigration.

"We should have had the transitional controls on migration from Eastern Europe. We should have introduced the points-based system much earlier.”

UK: 'The problems of a buddy hotline to Ministers'

Could Politicians be soon making dirty phone calls?

Πηγή: The Bureau of Inestigative Journalism

By Iain Overton

Sep. 23 2011

Today’s reports that Britain’s top 50 companies are to be granted unprecedented access to government ministers to spark life into the economy is concerning.

The initiative, ostensibly designed to boost economic growth, will make six ministers from three departments key points of contact for a select group of UK exporters and inward investors. The idea is to allow chief executives from Britain’s top companies easy access to ministers to discuss policy concerns.

On the surface this might seem like a good thing. It suggests a cutting away of red tape.

Singapore is quoted as a great example to how things can work in this way – they do it there and look at their economy. Those who question whether this closeness between ministers and business are dismissed as ‘paranoid’.

What these supporters of the scheme fail to acknowledge, however, are some serious conflict of interest issues.

Eyeing up the future

Ministers are often ambitious people, with an eye as much on their financial future as their political present.
Had News Corporation been granted a hotline to Jeremy Hunt would the proposed BSkyB takeover bid have happened before the phone hacking scandal properly broke?

Dispatches’ expose Politicians for Hire in 2010 showed this artfully. How can we, as taxpayers, be reassured that private conversations between profit-hungry businessmen and politicians ever-wary of their next step are always in the public interest?

A revolving door clearly exists between politics and business. After all, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt landed a lucrative job with Boots, while David Blunkett, the former secretary of state for work and pensions, went on to work for A4e, a leading employment and training firm that bids for multi-million pound contracts in the UK from Blunkett’s former department.

Will making the relationship between businesses and politicians benefit us or them?

Another issue is that this proposed role could inhibit ministers to deal with rival businesses fairly.

Hotline to controversy

We have already heard much about the closesness of the Murdoch empire to the Conservatives. Had News Corporation been granted a hotline to Jeremy Hunt would the proposed BSkyB takeover bid have happened before the phone hacking scandal properly broke?

There is also the issue of fairness. This scheme will favour large brands and big business. What voice will small companies have?

Underlying this is the problem of transparency. Will transcripts of phone calls be made available? Will we, the public, be able to learn what might be said in these conversations – the deals struck, the promises made?

After all the Freedom of Information Act has a commercial confidentiality ‘get-out-clause’ .

This scheme seems worryingly murky and cosy. The Bureau has already revealed that Tory party funding from the City doubled under David Cameron.

Making the links between the moneyed men of business and politicians both closer and at the same time less transparent smells decidedly rotten.