Object To Control, Argue For Choice

Others have got there before me regarding the No Thank EU campaign, but the reason for action is best described by Snowdon here.

At some point in 2015-16, millions of Europeans are going to pop into their local shop and find that their usual brand of cigarettes, or pouch of rolling tobacco, is no longer available. Those who smoke menthol and slims will be told that the EU decided to ban them back in 2013. The packs will be covered in giant warnings covering three-quarters of their surface. The exact size and dimensions of the packaging and the cigarettes will have been dictated in Brussels. 

While the obesity warriors strive to make crisp packets and chocolate bars smaller, the Tobacco Products Directive aims to make packs of tobacco larger. While scientists recognise that Swedish snus is the world's least hazardous tobacco product, the EU will maintain its ban on it. 

None of this can be justified either on health grounds or on grounds of market harmonisation. As Angela Harbutt notes in this article, no EU country has even considered banning menthol. Nor has any EU government mandated 75 per cent graphic warnings, or demanded that cigarettes be exactly 7.5mm in diameter, or implemented any of the other three-in-the-morning ideas that the berks of Brussels have come up with.

Indeed. the proposed Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) is a first class example of pointless EU interference where none is sought or needed, and more control of the UK being assumed by Brussels.

Consider too that the ban on snus is being pushed through despite an overwhelming majority of responses throughout Europe being heavily opposed to it, and the UK government's input - and, by extension, the British people's - being bypassed altogether by the actions of Anna Soubry, as well documented here recently.

Some might say that is enough to describe the TPD as a corrupt document in itself, but it having been drawn up by a Maltese Commissioner under investigation for fraud and with allegations of misdeeds and nepotism following him around almost daily, should have ensured the whole thing was scrapped and looked at again. That it wasn't is shameful of the EU and further proof that Brussels welcomes democracy and transparency like the Pope welcomes an endorsement request from Durex.

So, if you haven't done so already, do have a good look round the new No Thank EU site and add your name to the petition, remembering to tick the box which generates a message to your MEP (which you can personalise, as I'd recommend). Do also share widely with friends via Facebook and Twitter as I'm sure most of them have no knowledge of any of this deeply flawed directive, and are blissfully unaware of the proposals to consign long-enjoyed menthol tobacco and "half an ounce of Old Holborn" to prohibition and the inevitable black market.

Today Europe, Tomorrow ...

While you may be dreaming about our getting out of the EU, it would seem President Barroso is mulling ideas to the contrary.

We have come to Tripoli to identify sustainable solutions to today's challenges. These solutions will bring our peoples, our businesses, our cultures and our youth closer together.

We have come to Tripoli with the fascinating long-term perspective of a Euro-African economic area in mind – an area which will provide opportunities for 2.5billion citizens by 2050.

Some of us are old enough to remember when it was merely a European 'economic area in mind', but that was many EC directives ago.

Barroso's vision may be understandable though, just look at how many citizens we are talking here. 2.5bn is a lot of units for megalomaniacal people to play with, the scope for paper-shuffling fees and increases in self-importance is enormous.

Sometimes you wish they would just be honest about it all by hollowing out a volcano and filling it with flashing gadgets, inept uniformed foot soldiers, and some hungry sharks for if an inconvenient spy should turn up.

Oh, and a big fluffy white cat, natch.

Mascot Watch (10) - Bad Moon Rising Edition

As you can imagine, one meets some interesting political characters while hanging around the Tory fringe for a couple of days (more about that later). But it was particularly pleasing to encounter our esteemed blog mascot at The Freedom Zone on Monday.

I haven't done a Davies update for a while so, courtesy of RT TV, here's our Phil - fresh from the Free Society debate - doing a Creedence and predicting dark days ahead for the Eurozone. Watch out for the description of the EU as "an inward-facing, backward-looking protection racket".

We're not worthy.

Oh yeah, and here's an exclusive 'behind the scenes' pic from Puddlecote Paparazzo Ltd.

I'm not a stalker. Honest.

Horse On The Horizon, But Stable Door Now Secure

Look at Europe Minster David Lidington's face in this Telegraph article. It's that satisfied 'job well done' face. And so should he be happy, as - lumbered with the hot potato of EU membership post Lisbon - Lidington reckons he may have placated Tory Eurosceptics with this masterful wheeze.

The Government will announce plans for a “referendum lock” on any future surrendering of British powers to the European Union.

The amendment, which could be law by next year, will allow for a vote if there is “any transfer of powers away from the UK and towards the centre”, according to a Whitehall source.

It would cover any future treaty – successors to the previous Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon treaties – or any large scale transfer of power outside those treaties.

British legal advisers in Brussels would determine whether a transfer of power had taken place. MPs would then be given the chance to vote on holding a referendum. If they vote in favour, a referendum would be held.

“This doesn’t apply to Accession Treaties [when a new country joins the EU], or to other minor changes which do not transfer power.”

Very good, David, have a biscuit.

However, as you may have spotted, the operative word above is 'future', when placed before 'treaty'. Because, as Gawain has mentioned today, there is very little of our sovereignty left after Lisbon.

A promise to offer a referendum on any future Treaty, you say. But not treaties that involve enlargement.

The thing is that only Treaties to come are the ones involving the enlargement. The UK government formally supports the entry of Croatia and Turkey (the only two on the horizon) also Liddington is specifically excluding enlargement Treaties from the scope of his act.

Gawain further points to article 48.7 of the Lisbon Treaty (page 51). This is entitled 'Simplified Revision Procedure' or, to put it in layman's terms, the clause which allows the EU to change just about whatever they feel like, whenever they bastard well choose.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

So, Lisbon is quite adequate for the needs of the EU, ta very much. If it doesn't cover everything they have envisaged, it can be easily amended. Any nation which objects - which Britain wouldn't as Lisbon isn't included in this 'referendum lock' - would have just six months to do so.

Now, even if Lisbon was included in Lidington's act of defiance, which it is not, the timescale suggests a referendum would be extremely difficult to implement, and why would parliament want to do something like that anyway when there is no need to do so under Lisbon, and even an objection is just one among 27 nations. In a collective where there are always more than 13 states willing to sign anything to keep their net profitable membership, it would be just a bow and arrow against the lightning storm.

There's just one more clue in the Telegraph piece as to the sleight of hand being employed here.

Officials suggested that referendums could be triggered if the UK was asked to give up its veto over sensitive areas such as foreign policy or security.

Which, oddly enough, is the only part of our sovereignty that Lisbon doesn't seek to control ... yet.

This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

He's a clever chappie is David.

He has promised a referendum on any treaty the EU puts forward in the future - except ones that the government have already committed to - while simultaneously excluding the treaty which has eradicated the need for any future treaties.

Inspired stuff. No wonder he looks such a happy and contented fella.

Now, if he was truly serious about defending our sovereignty against the inexorable march of the EU, there is a clue here as to how it could have been done.

Ministers will introduce the right to hold a referendum by amending the original 1972 European Communities Act under which Britain joined the Common Market.

Hmm. Call me cynical, and all that, but if the 1972 Act can be amended, could it not also be repealed pending ... I dunno, a referendum of the British people?

That horse won't be seen round these parts again, but doesn't Cameron's newly-varnished stable door look nice?

Can We Leave Yet?

Via Rosie, it appears that the new communist experiment the EU is becoming increasingly unpopular.

The European Commission says fewer than half of voters across Europe are in favour of the union.

The “Eurobarometer” survey – conducted in May – found only 49 per cent of voters backed the EU, four per cent fewer than last year.

Trust was lowest in Britain where only 20 per cent of voters have faith in EU institutions.

Hardly surprising, really, considering that out of a population of just over 500 million, only 27 unelected commissioners get any significant say in how the EU public are entitled to live.

It really is well past time that we were allowed to voice an opinion about whether we want anything to do with this bloated, venal, eugenicistic, hideously-expensive, self-serving mega-quango. We are supposed to be living in a democracy, after all.


The Campaign for an EU Referendum are hoping to bring about just such an opportunity, by holding the coalition to their word that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament and, that the petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament.

Their campaign bus (see above) will be touring the country from September, collecting signatures in the UK's major cities, but they are also targeting 10,000 responses from the blogosphere. You can register your interest HERE.

I very much hope they reach their target, as I can't wait to see how the oleaginous Cleggerons will contrive to wriggle out of yet another much-trumpeted empty liberal promise.

Every EU Loser Wins

Hairy Moneyball can be very illuminating at times. For example, I wasn't aware that an electorally rejected euro-fanatic had just been effectively promoted.

And finally… it was good to see former Labour MEP Richard Corbett sitting at the top table with President Van Rompuy. Richard is now head of the President’s Cabinet. Congratulatons Richard. You deserve your success and we all know you will do exceptional work for Herman Van Rompuy and, by extension, for all of us involved in the EU.

It is, of course, the same Corbett who was dumped as MEP for Yorkshire and Humber in June last year.

But in the strange incestuous world of the EU, this failure is rewarded with a seat at the top table, at the right hand of the similarly unelected President, and is fully 'deserved', apparently.

Corbett may well have been given the democratic boot by his electorate, but Hairy did only point out that Corbett would be very useful for 'those of us involved in the EU'.

How very nice for them.

The Lost Joys

Perhaps it's a self-employed thing, but I tend to be stubbornly resistant to illness while the world is assiduous and active. The moment total relaxation sets in, so does the bastard lurgey.

Sniffles arrived Christmas morning and, after consuming each of the 15 items on the festively-adorned dining table, the ensuing 40 odd hours were reduced to a sluggish torpor with my energy level not much above that of my cat the day after he had been drugged for his knackers to be cut off.

In hindsight, it was only the loud application of energetic early 80s punk and new wave that drove me through cooking the Christmas dinner anyway. If Mrs P hadn't been at the in-laws with the little Ps, and the non-headphone ban on Siouxsie, PiL, Toyah, The Tubes and Buzzcocks had still been in effect, they probably would have been served up oxtail soup and toast instead.

Boxing Day was a dead loss too. Alternating between involuntary shivering and equatorial heat flushes, my legs doggedly refused to give up on a strict work to rule policy, while the other Puddlecotes played a Wii dancing game so energetic that just the possibility of my being invited to participate was almost enough to induce tears.

With symptoms faded, a return to the keyboard sees an RSS feed with over 500 unread items, and a quick read around the blogroll reveals that the righteous have been spending Christmas Day issuing fucking press releases. The saying does mention 'no rest for the rancid, hideous wicked' though, or something like that, so we shouldn't be overly surprised.

I've much catching up to do and would seem to be in a touchy mood, with little things jumping out of the page and being extremely irritating. Such as this.

If the sentence is carried out, it would be the first time an EU national has been executed in China for 50 years.

EU national? Has post-Lisbon federalism kicked in to this extent already?

Expect some Tim Worstall style brevity from here in the next couple of days if this mood lasts.

Kinnock's Bint: Arrogant, Gravy Train-Riding Arse

Labour's hypocrisy in taunting Cameron over his 'cast-iron guarantee' pledge is already astounding, but when it comes from the wife of a disastrous British political failure, who has since spent every waking hour incubating his (and her) millions from the EU experiment, it is obscene.

Yes, here is Glenys Kinnock, in full flow during an Upper Chamber Q&A, vigorously protecting the financial interests of the Kinnocks the UK.

I cannot help noting that the cast-iron guarantee given by Mr Cameron seems to have somewhat evaporated and been lamely replaced by the pledge that democracy through Parliament will be replaced by democracy by plebiscite on European issues. That certainly cannot be in the interests of the British people.

Yep. That'll do it. The British people being allowed a vote on their future is 'not in the interests of the British people'.

After all, why on earth would we have any significant view of what is good for us? Politicians know best. Especially ones who have garnered an ample fortune from continually denying the voice of the British people.

There really is no point in allowing the public to determine their own destiny in a democracy. That way lies a Kinnock wage cut madness, apparently.

Besides, the EU is the way to more Kinnock cash forward in a democracy. The public's opinions are 'irrelevant'.

... a referendum on continued membership is unjustified, unnecessary and, frankly, irrelevant to the interests and needs of the people of this country.

Irrelevant to the British small business owner bogged down with EU instigated red tape and compliance costs.

Irrelevant to the British employee restricted as to his own choice of overtime via the European Working Time Directive ... if they have a job at all after huge overheads imposed on employers by EU directives.

Irrelevant to British fishermen who are denied exclusive access to British waters in favour of the Spanish (and just about everyone else who fancies a pop), while Norwegians can exploit their own waters freely since seceding.

Irrelevant to British farmers, struggling under the CAP to subsidise non profit-making farmers in other member states (otherwise known as France).

Irrelevant to anyone in the UK who buys products at inflated prices due to the pressures exerted by EU bureaucracy and meddling.

Irrelevant to the London plumber/brickie/leccie who is now unable to compete with a Lithuanian, with free EU access, but vastly differing financial needs as he makes hay for a few years channelling his earnings back to Vilnius.

Irrelevant to the City of London, strangled by envious EU legislation designed to put inferior Frankfurt and Paris markets on an equal footing.

The views of every eligible UK voter. Irrelevant. As long as Glenys and UK political reject hubby are able to trouser their wad.

And, most disgusting of all. Irrelevant even though Labour promised that such views would be given an airing via a referendum which Baroness Kinnock, in her new role as Labour apologist to the Lords, now says is not 'in the interests of the British people'.

This hideous, arrogant, gravy train-riding, treacherous sock puppet didn't campaign against the Labour manifesto when it offered a plebiscite on the EU, but is now saying that referenda are somehow evil. And that you, the voter, are irrelevant.

Baroness Kinnock: Self-serving/greedy/obscene/condescending/ amoral/disgusting snuffler (delete as applicable).

Dick Out And About: Lisbon And Smoking Bans

Let the Europe-wide marginalisation commence (link)

We Didn't Sign Up For This ---> Referendum?

Vaclav Klaus is now getting backing from his government to secure an opt-out to the Lisbon Treaty, according to the Wall Street Journal.

PRAGUE -- The Czech government said Monday it is ready to discuss President Vaclav Klaus's demand for a special clause in the Lisbon treaty with other European Union governments and officials, but asked him to guarantee he won't raise any new conditions for his approval of the document.

Last week, Mr. Klaus, the last hold-out among European leaders and an outspoken critic of the Lisbon Treaty, said he would only sign the treaty if the Czech Republic gets a permanent opt-out from the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

All power to your elbow, Vaclav, keep it up, son.

Hmmm. So this would appear to put the ball firmly back in the EU's court, would it not? No opt-out, no ratification from the Czech Republic. One would assume that Klaus's negotiators will be fêted when they next return to Brussels ... Barroso might even break out the big tin of Quality Street and his best Port. And, of course, an opt-out seems certain.

All this on the back of Ireland also being seduced, like a louche tart, into voting yes to the treaty with exemptions and opt-outs, after Brown had squinted his way through scribbling away the UK public's right to an opinion in some Benelux back room.

Now, forgive me if I'm applying parochial logic to this, but if I signed my business up to an agreement between 27 similar businesses to mine (disregard the fact that the Office of Fair Trading would be crawling all over us for it), and after I had added my signature, two of the 27 obtained special terms not available to me at the time, I would be tempted to cry foul.

I might decide that I would like to consult my partners and/or legal advisers about it. Maybe even hold a vote amongst my employees to see what they thought of the deal, and whether it was a partnership worth pursuing. And if they said no? Well, I might take my chances and argue through the courts that the agreement had changed since I put pen to paper, so was null and void.

I think I'd have a solid case, too.

Now there's a thought.

Stop Keep Saying That

Via England Expects, more evidence of the growing political trend in attempting to silence opposition rather than debating the subject matter.

Micheál Martin, the Irish Foreign Minister, doesn't like the way the democratically-elected Freedom and Democracy Group are campaigning for a NO vote in Lisbon Treaty referendum 2 - 'In Brussels, no-one can hear you scream NO' (soon to be a Lucas-esque polyology if the stout-guzzlers keep telling the EU to feck off)

In particular, he doesn't like the campaign flyer pointing out some negative facts about the treaty and the machinations of the EU itself.

As I have said before, people are welcome to express but this type of deeply cynical behaviour should have no place in our debate.

Yes. That's right. If you disagree, you have no place in the debate. Millions of votes throughout Europe don't afford you that priviliege in a two horse race. It should be overwhelming approval of Europe or ... err ... overwhelming approval of Europe that you espouse in referendum literature.

If the claims are so outlandish, Micheál, why not just rebut them? Surely a simple task even for an addled pro-EU turf-sniffer.

Get thee in the back seat, inconvenient facts, you're not welcome while MM drives this nation into the sewage farm. Right so.

UPDATE: Ollie Cromwell's blog has a neat little widget regarding the Irish referendum. I think the message is clear.


Get Widget

He's Back ...

... and still sticking it to 'em. Check out the bemused look on the face of El Pres - priceless.

Mary Honeyball In Talking Sense Shock!

There goes the neighbourhood. Hairy Moneyballs posted something on her blog which wasn't total bollocks!

If you are an eBay user, you may already have received the following e-mail. If you have, as a believer that everyone should be able to buy and sell on the internet, I would urge you to sign the eBay petition.

The petition is in regard to attempted protectionism being forced on the auction site by certain 'brand' companies. eBay explain it as follows:

EBay was built on a simple idea – that we could empower people by building a global trading platform where practically anyone could buy or sell practically anything.

Well, actually, eBay was built on the idea of making lots of money on the back of a vital free market (of which they shouldn't feel ashamed), but forget that for a second.

But that idea is now under threat from certain brand owners and manufacturers who are trying to turn back the clock and block the sale of their products on online marketplaces and other websites across the EU.

Ultimately, what is at stake is the right of sellers to compete fairly in the wider online marketplace, and the right of buyers to be able to access the best possible deals from the widest possible selection of goods.

We are therefore calling on European policymakers to amend EU competition law to stop these unfair trade practices.

Hairy is giving her backing to eBay and (no, please. I can't say this, it's not natural) I agree with her.

One of the infallible rules of life was that if ever one was starved of delusional cockwaffle, a quick trip to Hairy's place would fill that void. This principle has now been shaken to its very core. Black is now white, up is now down, chalk is now cheese (Liam Donaldson is still a cunt, though). If she posts more articles like this, I might even be reluctantly forced to go back to reading Paul Flynn for laughs ... yes, it is that worrying.

I'd never viewed Hairy as a free-market advocate before. Perhaps it was all the talk of positive discrimination and interference into such important issues as women being told to stop buying shoes that they wish to wear. Shows how wrong one can be.

Seeing as she is turning a bit libertarian, perhaps she might begin arguing for the abolition of the CAP which enables the EU to impose tariffs on the import of produce from non-member states. Not only that, it artificially creates waste via internal subsidies, thereby leading to dumping of surplus on impoverished nations. Without the CAP, Fairtrade (which, in turn, hypes prices to EU residents), so beloved by Labour, quite possibly wouldn't be necessary, as Dizzy argued in February.

Go on, Hairy, call for an end to it. A referendum on Lisbon would do the trick just as well. Be free, Hairy. Now you have dipped your toe in the water of the free market, embrace freedom from EU oligarchy, the biggest threat to the free market of them all. I dare ya.

One other aspect hits you when reading such lucid thoughts from Labour's second-rated London EU trougher. To receive the e-mail, she must therefore be an eBay member. I wonder what a generously-proportioned 80s throwback feminist buys on there with our taxes? Something like this perhaps?

The EU: No Alternative View

In the face of jeers from those in the EU Parliament members who don't enjoy hearing dissent (quite a lot of them), Nigel Farage delivered a final address, for this parliamentary session, which is worth a watch. "A complete shower" is an appropriate description for an organisation which steadfastly refuses to allow any challenge to their big plan.

84% of our laws are dictated by this parliament, yet following the Irish voting no to the Lisbon Treaty, the leader of the Socialists (natch), Martin Schultz, declared that "We must not bow to populism", as the EU marched on towards federalism regardless.

I don't know about you, but on the European issue, UKIP tick more boxes for me than any other party on the ballot paper, so I just might X their box on June 4th.

H/T Trixy

UPDATE: Dan Hannan writes on the same theme here.

So What Are We Waiting For?

It's a majority, so as a democracy, our politicians will act, won't they?

1. The current economic crisis has made me more likely to support Britain joining the Euro

Agree- 31%
Disagree- 64%

2. Britain benefits overall from membership of the European Union in terms of jobs and trade

Agree- 44%
Disagree- 51%

3. Britain should leave the EU but maintain close trading links

Agree- 55%
Disagree- 41%

4. The British people should decide in a vote before Britain transfers any further power to the European Union

Agree- 84%
Disagree- 13%

Can we leave now?

Holyrood Screwed?

Oh dear. There we were debating whether the EU would have something to say about the Scottish Amish's Assembly's booze hike, when it looks like they may have to get past Mandy and his chums first.

SERIOUS concerns have been raised in Whitehall over the legality of plans by the Scottish Government to introduce a minimum price for alcohol.

The Scotsman has learned UK ministers have been briefed that the proposal announced by the SNP on Monday breaks European competition laws.

And with at least two major trade organisations preparing legal challenges to minimum pricing, there is concern that the Scottish Government's actions might see UK government ministers dragged through the courts.

A pleasant thought, but anyway ...

Scottish ministers argue they would be using existing laws and devolved government statutory instruments to impose minimum prices as a mandatory condition for a licence. And they still plan to have the proposal in place in time for Christmas.

But a senior Whitehall source told The Scotsman: "Basically we have been told minimum pricing is completely illegal.

"We are worried this will mean we will be taken to court as the responsible authority.

"The Scottish Government's proposal appears to be ill-thought-out and we don't even think it will work, because what is needed is a cultural change in Scotland and that is not going to be effected by making booze more expensive."

Hang on a cotton-picking minute. This quote has made-up by some bored hack at the Scotsman. There is no fucking way any Labour adviser would have the common sense to work that out.

Towards A European Army

Philippe Pétain would no doubt approve.

Via England Expects, it's interesting to read that German troops are advancing into France. Again.

France and Germany are expected to give details this weekend of an agreement to station hundreds of German troops on French soil for the first time since the second world war, in a region the countries have squabbled over for centuries.

Sacre Bleu!

It's no secret that the French and the Germans have been the keenest proponents of a European Army, with both countries periodically extolling the virtues of the plan. However, so far the powers of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) have been limited.

One of the major concerns that encouraged Ireland to vote no to the Lisbon Treaty was the fear of Irish men and women being conscripted, in the future, to a European Army. The EU, of course, were adamant that this wouldn't be the case.

Will the Treaty create a European army?

No. Military capabilities remain in national hands. The Treaty foresees that Member States can make available civilian and military resources to the Union for the implementation of its Common Security and Defence operations. However, any Member State has the right to oppose such operations and all contributions to them will be always on a voluntary basis.

A group of Member States who are willing and have the necessary capability will be able to undertake disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and peace-keeping tasks. No Member State can be forced to participate in such operations.

That's not what Germany and France believe though. They have a different view.

In order to accelerate the integration process of Europe’s militaries, [German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter] Steinmeier is working with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner. These two countries have maintained a common German-French brigade since the early 1990s, which could serve as a sort of nucleus for a common European Army. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by the end of this year as planned, nations like Germany and France would have more freedom to establish such an army. Current plans call for an EU air transport command, a Ministerial Defense Council, and even an EU military academy.

So who is correct? Well, maybe both. As I understand it, the Lisbon Treaty is a self-amending document. In effect, as soon as it is ratified, the EU Commission can change it.

It's quite clear from the stance of the Franco-German brigade that they believe the prospect of a European Army is very much on the cards, and moves such as the deployment of troops to historically sensitive areas could be viewed by a cynic (I put my hand up) as an exercise in military PR.

The collaboration of EU forces to tackle Somalian pirates last year was also a significant step, with British approval, no less.

The European Union will today launch a British-led anti-piracy armada off the Horn of Africa in Europe's first joint naval operation.

Operation Atalanta, whose mission includes protecting ships taking food aid to Somalia, will be approved by EU foreign ministers in a move hailed by Britain and France as a significant step in Europe's nascent security and defence policy.

Not that surprising seeing as Defence Secretary John Hutton came out in full support of a European Army in October.

So, with Ireland being thrown amendments to help them to make the 'correct' decision on Lisbon, and many countries not even allowing us voters a say, it could be left to just the Czech Republic and Poland to block the treaty. And with it, it would seem, a standing army of joint European troops, first mooted at the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.

France and Germany central players? Poland a vital piece in the jigsaw? We've been here before, haven't we?