Cadbury cremed by bad law

I’ve always been partial to Cadbury’s Creme Eggs and for the past two weeks, I’ve been buying boxes and bringing them into the office, exhorting my colleagues to “eat them while they are still British”. Alas, no more. At 1pm today, the iconic British company became the plaything of an American conglomerate whose trademark cheese products are, astonishingly, even less related to actual cheese than Creme Eggs are to eggs.

PM has been busy lately, launching a attempted decapitation strategy on DC yesterday in a speech filled with more chutzpah than a New York second-hand car dealership. Now he’s been to meet the Kraft CEO, who’s not averse to audacity herself on the evidence of this takeover, he is sagely warning that he’ll be looking for more detailed assurances in the coming months. I don’t think that’s going to worry Irene Rosenfeld much – she’s only 4% short of the shares she needs to take Cadburyoff the stock exchange altogether.

And what PM is less keen to let you know is that it was Labour, through the Companies Act 2006 that effectively removed the right of government to protect our long-established businesses from takeover. The act implemented the EU’s Takeover and Transparency Obligations Directives, which harmonise takeover law throughout the EU and prevent company boards from doing anything to frustrate takeover bids. But surprisingly, it’s not the EU’s fault.

Despite the obvious agenda of EU member states to fix takeover legislation to favour their own subsidised corporate environment (ever wondered why so many German, French and Spanish firms can afford to buy British companies and infrastructure?) the directive did leave EU governments free to restrict takeoever law in their states. Labour didn’t take that opportunity and so the government is now in a very weak position to do anything about Kraft or dictate terms to it once Cadbury is bought.

There’s nothing intrisically bad about large British companies getting taken over. It puts money into shareholders’ pockets and since many shareholders are pension schemes, it helps to boost flagging pension values. Certainly Kraft has chosen to pay well over the odds for Cadbury. But it is important that we have British companies continuing to develop and emerge on the global market as players.

And with little or no protection from foreign predators, that is less, not more, likely to happen.

Don’t bank on it

While people decry banking bonuses, they are ignoring the real threat posed to our financial advantage by the appointment of Michael Barnier as Commissioner for the Single Market. I’m furious that for the sake of having some nonentity like Baroness Ashton appointed to a puffed-up, non-elected position mandated by a treaty that most of Europe wants to bin but is being denied the right to vote on, Labour has thrown the City of London at the mercy of the Franco-German EU axis that wants to get rid of it.

The City of London has been a barrier to French and German dominance of Europe ever since the Napoleonic Wars – once again, Labour has failed to understand the historical context of modern events and only sees the city in narrow political terms. It is, they reason, a bastion of public school wealth creation, a means through which the country’s wealth is manipulated from those who have earned it to those who control the City and its markets.

Of course, the reality is that the City is the difference – the difference between the UK and every other nation in Europe. It is a global, worldwide, established and mature marketplace that is one of the few reasons why our strained and fading nation still merits any kind of recognition on the world stage (along with Trident and our geographical locus). By handing the regulation of such an important asset over to its opponents, Gordon Brown has plunged it into a fight for competitive survival – one I’m sure it will win – right at the very time it needs to be focussing on helping Britain recover from the recession he helped to plunge us into.

He doesn’t realise the damage that threatening the health of the City could have. Company headquarters, overseas investment and many, many jobs could be at risk if the City is strangled or seen to be under attack. The problem with Brown, as we saw at PMQs today, is that he is suddenly receiving some vaguely sensible advice. But he’s too arrogant to admit it’s not his own doing and is starting to believe that he himself has aquired a Midas touch.

Not so, as I’m sure many city managers would be happy to tell him. Not that Labour listens to the City now that its political money seems to be going elsewhere.

UKIP’s major point

An interesting story in The Times today about the relationship between UKIP and the Conservative Party, which threatens to become even more bitter than that between the Tories and the parties of the left.

The story says that UKIP offered to not fight the general election if the Conservatives gave a written guarantee (as opposed to a cast-iron one) that a referendum would definitely be held after the election and that its MPs would be given a free vote in a Commons ratification. He got no answer, although both the BBC and The Times say that Lord Strathclyde acknowlegdes the meeting have taken place.

In case anyone didn’t know, UKIP elected a new leader last week, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to take over from Nigel Farage. This is obviously his attempt to make some headlines and announce his presence on the scene and that’s all fine. I’m glad that six months ago, the Conservatives had the foresight to see that Lisbon might be ratified ahead of an election and that this delicate siutation required careful planning, not more rash promises. In addition, a pact with UKIP endorses an openly Eurosceptic view, which may have caused further conflict within the party. We were right to reject their silly politicking.

What is interesting to me is the idea that, this one policy demand satisfied, UKIP was prepared to stand down from elections. In addition, Lord Pearson continued:

“And then when we had the referendum – which we believed we would win – we would then be out of the European Union and then at that point UKIP, well it would have been up to UKIP, but it would probably have disbanded because its major point would no longer be in existence.”

I thought this was a major party with policies on a range of issues. It appears, in fact to be a single-issue pressure group that stands for election and paradoxically ends up taking votes from the one mainstream political party that can deliver its single issue objectiveIt’s an incredibly short-sighted organisation.

If, as I hope it will, Britain ends its membership of the European Union within the next 10 years, there is a great deal that will have to be planned for to ensure that we remain competitive and politically engaged inside and outside the EU. For 35 years, our politics has operated on various fringes of Europe and to place ourselves outside that will require plenty of adjustments. Adjustments for the better, perhaps, but adjustments nevertheless.

But as soon as the exit from the EU is achieved, that appears to be UKIP’s tipping point to disband according to its new leader. Never mind the implications of the exit, never mind the work that follows it – we’ve got we wanted and now we’re off. This group doesn’t know the first thing about running a country – it’s only interested in tunnel vision politics and single issues. Successful politics understands that issues tend to happen simultaneously and everything, as Lenin once said, is connected to everything else.

So if you aren’t that keen on Europe and are thinking about voting for them in Woking or anywhere for that matter, try asking this of your UKIP candidate when they come knocking – what happens during life after the EU? Then ask yourself whether you really want people bought into a party with no concept of strategy to be your MP or local councillor.

Blair ditches project

Herman's not a German but he's supported by them

Herman's not a German but he's supported by them

It’s okay, panic overTony Blair will not become President of Europe and we can all sleep a little easier. I don’t imagine for a second that the “winning candidate” – and I use the term advisedly given that I don’t remember receiving a polling card for this particular “election” – is going to do a vastly better job. Herman van Rompuy seems like a unpleasantly devout federalist who talks about standardised taxation and exectly the sorts of things that will have people running to UKIP.

It reinforces my belief that the UK and the EU are increasingly incompatible in terms of their future direction. What pro-EU Conservatives and Liberal Democrats don’t seem to get is that the European ideal is a Franco-Germanic concept designed to ensure those nations’ national interests remain predominant. I don’t blame them for that – for 200 years Britain pursued often brutal foreign policy to ensure our national interests were enforced – but we are surfing over a waterfall if we don’t recognise where the EU path is leading us.

The most scary thing for me is not the single currency, tax regime, foreign policy etc – it is the idea of Mr Rompuy being “named” as the EU leader and “chosen” by other leaders. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Politburo used to announce through Pravda and identical to the way that the Chinese president is “elected”. For me, the worrying thing about the EU is that it is sucking up the democratic mandate further and further from the people it seeks to govern. I can’t accept that this makes Europe safer, more harmonious or prosperous.

Tony Blair as EU President would have been a dreadful thing precisely because he holds the sort of centralising, anti-democratic tendencies that would re-inforce this worrying trend. Voting by region every five years is not democracy – no-one should sit in the European Parliament unless they have been directly elected by voters and I’m still not sure why if the European Commission is necessary it cannot be chosen out of the parliament in the same way as the cabinet in Westminster.

A separate EU presidential election ought to occur if we are to have an EU president. But since the chairman or woman of the EC ought to wield sufficient power, I cannot accept that a president is necessary in addition.

There is so much waste, so much interference and so much anti-democratic instinct in Brussels that DC should ignore it altogether for six years. Then, two years into his second term, he should hold a full EU membership referendum – once Britain has built up her economic and social strength once again – to settle this question once and for all. A strong Britain needs Europe and vice-versa – but my view is that leaving the EU would make us focus on what we as a nation want to be in 2050 and beyond.

Referendum fever

Back in 2007, a Conservative leadership that badly needed to get back the support of The Sun newspaper made a “cast-iron” guarantee about holding a referendum on whatever treaty resulted from the negotiations at Lisbon.

Once the Czech president Vaclav Klaus signs his country’s ratification of the treaty (as looks imminent), it will become law across Europe and binding on all states. The only way out is to leave and the only way to “repatriate powers“  is to negotiate agreement from all 27 members countries, which will mean so much compromise as to be essentially impossible. In effect, the only way to renegotiate is to leave and try to rejoin.

I still believe that holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty itself is pointless. It would be an expensive way of guaging public opinion – I can predict with 90% certainly that around 65-70% would vote against the treaty and 30-35% for it. So what? There’s nothing you can do with that info except to figure that Britain is a broadly Euro-sceptic country, which we already know.

So DC’s promise has been overtaken by events and he knows it. His problem now is to reconcile his party between those who want a referendum and/or exit from Europe – and how to stop them voting for UKIPpers – and those who still see a future in a Europe of trading partners. It is unlikely that other European nations – particularly France, Germany and a Spain riddled with resentment over Gibraltar – will allow the UK to enjoy the benefits of economic community without the constraints of the social and political union.

So where does DC go? He promised a referendum but the one he promised is a dead duck. He has stated he “won’t let matters rest” but that could mean anything. The repatriation of powers is not going to find favour in Europe itself but he doesn’t want to advocate leaving the EU for fear of upsetting the One Nation Set, including Ken Clarke who is broadly seen by voters as moderate and electable.

Personally, I have always favoured a trading relationship with Europe without the political tie-ins. If this becomes impossible, I think preserving our political freedom is more important than trade and we should withdraw from the EU and manage our trade relationships accordingly. It’s not a one-way street; Europe also needs the UK – otherwise we become a very potent competitor.

My suggestion to DC was to let Europe take a back seat but he seems adamant on pushing it. Therefore I think we should have a referendum with four questionsyes or no to:

1) The Lisbon Treaty

2) Membership of the Euro

3) Inclusion in the Social Chapter

4) Membership of the EU itself

The referendum would cost the same amount of money – but will provide a government with information on the sort of Europe that its people want and allow it to go forward with negotiation on that basis.

Don’t let the grin win

At least the man on the left has experience of being president...

At least the man on the left has experience of being president...

There’s a great website with a petition to sign up to if you want to stop Tony Blair becoming President of Europe. It would be even nicer if there was an election on the subject, come to think of it – but that’s the EU for you. Even if we voted for that Dutch chap or the bloke from Luxembourg instead, we’d probably have to have a re-run until the “correct” president was electedA bit like in Afghanistan.

Anyway, please feel free to make your way to Stop Blair! and do your bit to ensure that the grinning idiot doesn’t get to do to Europe what he did to Britain. And please bear in mind that if he gets the job, he’ll be pushing for PM to abandon the Good Ship Brown in favour of becoming his Foreign Minister. I can’t think of anything worse – nor a more suitable set of corrupt and lofty institutions for them to preside over.

Of course if you are really desperate to stop Blair, you could always sign the Lib Dem petition of Scottish MEP George Lyon. I hope it’s better than all their other ones.

Blair Wish Project

Putin in reverse - former PM wants to be your President

Putin in reverse - former PM wants to be your President

Things really are hotting up in Europe. Firstly, we’ve got the “will he, won’t he?” saga about the European constitution with the Czech president Vaclav Klaus – rapidly becoming a hero of Eurosceptics – trying to hold out on the Lisbon Treaty as long as possible. I can’t find it now but I read this morning in one of the papers that he was trying to get a ruling in a Czech court that the treaty had to go to a referendum in the Czech republic – this is probably the only tactic that would be able to hold up the process until May next year.

I’m not holding my breath that the legal system of any of the member states would give a judgement against the EU. I think it is likely that the treaty will have to be signed by the end of the year; certainly that is the line being spun by Klaus’s inner circle to the press. Such a line clearly relieves the political pressure on him. But at the same time, some signals from Conservative bigwigs suggest everything is not as it seems. We shall see.

David Miliband is not among the doubters, as he made his pitch for the EU Foreign Secretary post today. But the most worrying thing about this whole business is the idea of Tony Blair as the President of Europe. As far as I’m concerned, the whole concept of a European President is a totally obnoxious and febrile one for the very reason that someone like Blair was always going to end up holding it.

The centre-right have a majority in the European parliament, yet the European Commission is stuffed full of socialists and the only real contenders for President are left of centre as well. That’s the EU for you - made by socialists, for socialists regardless of what the voters of Europe think. We elect 650-odd troughers to go and sit in a bi-local theatre of buffoonery also known as the European Parliament while the people who make the decisions remain from the same political class and persuasion that dreamed up the silly European sophistry to start with.

The idea of Blair sitting on top of them all as a “reward” for his achievements is poetic. Remind me again about his achievements – the failure to reform welfare, the failure to reform the NHS, badly botched constitutional tinkering, opening our borders to immigration without provision of proper infrastructure, cash for honours, a PR disaster in Kosovo and two illegal wars in the Middle East. More importantly, he failed to persuade Britain to go into the Euro and by the end of his tenure – where politics was changed for the worse – event the British people had had enough of him.

Like PM, all you need is a few years on the lecture circuit and all is forgiven in British politics. Sometimes, like in the case of Sir John Major, who was badly let down by his greedy and complacent parliamentary party, that it a good thing. But Blair’s failures were all his own and the result of a hubris that badly let down large sections of this country.

For goodness’ sake, let’s not give him the opportunity to do the same to the whole of Europe.