The financial crisis has rather knocked the Commission's global ambitions, and Obama's administration has shown commitment to NATO, but as NATO's Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has already pointed out, military spending in Europe continues to dramatically drop, undermining NATO’s capabilities alongside European ability to project power.

Rasmussen has been at the forefront of noting the synergy between the EU's ambitions, and NATO's relevancy problem. As the US elections approach, questions about America's commitment to work-shy Europe could further undermine NATO, and it would be a great political win for Rasmussen to be the man who integrated two global organisations.

As Rasmussen has noted, Europe could pursue 'smart defence', by "...building security for less money by working together..." and, he warns "...As the price of military equipment continues to rise, European states acting alone may struggle to afford high-tech weapons systems."

He urges that "...European nations should work in small clusters to combine their resources and build capabilities that can benefit the alliance as a whole. Here, NATO can act as a matchmaker, bringing nations together to identify what they can do jointly at a lower cost, more efficiently, and with less risk."

This is exactly what the Commission in Brussels wants: outside pressure on member states to integrate further, abandoning statehood and undoing military formations that are often steeped in history and national identity. With 21 common nations between NATO and the EU, the opportunities and financial logic to merge operations will soon be hard to ignore, especially from Washington’s viewpoint, tired of European fudging and inaction.

NATO's 2010 Lisbon Summit saw a new Security Concept which took the step of stating that a strong EU is key to Euro-Atlantic security, and as such, it is no surprise to see how the EU is piggy-backing on NATO's hard work, and developing operational experience of its own whilst giving the risk to America.

NATO (largely American forces) intervened in Bosnia with the IFOR force in 1995. It was replaced by SFOR in 1996, which ran until 2004. Who took over operations? The European Union, with its Althea force, aiming to carry on further implementing the Dayton Agreement.

Conflict broke out in Kosovo in 1999, resulting in NATO intervention under the name KFOR. Now that most of the dangerous work is over, and hampered by its own internal divisions regarding recognition of Kosovo as a state, the EU has its EULEX force - the EU Rule of Law mission, deployed in 2008.

And of course there is Afghanistan. In 2003 NATO deployed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which, amongst other things, helped train police. Sure enough, the EU has followed in NATO's footsteps. In 2007, EUPOL Afghanistan - the European Union police mission - started operations.

One of the greatest signs of integration is in the field of anti-piracy. NATO launched Operation Ocean Shield in 2009 to protect shipping from Somali Pirates. The EU followed suit, sending Operation Atalanta and the EU's NAVFOR (Naval Force) into pirate waters. Both of these operations are commanded and controlled, no doubt using the same systems and structures, at NATO’s base in Northwood, Middlesex.

As such, expect the EU to increase its involvement in Libya, after things have calmed down. For rather than provide pooled funding to contribute to the UK's superior, already existing, defence capabilities, and accept British protection for other EU states, Brussels would far prefer to dismantle national forces and reconstitute them as an EU army, in the process eroding national identities, and building far less efficient, multi-lingual, poorly commanded and controlled, legions for Europe.

The EU neighbourhood is defined as the Arab states of north Africa: Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco; the core Middle East states of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt, and the "Occupied Palestinian Territories"; and the lands that lead into and include Eastern Europe, of Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine, and Belarus.

The neighbourhood policy aims to build partnerships with the region, promoting democracy, sustainable growth and better management of cross-border links. It aims to exploit the greater powers given to the EU under the Lisbon Treaty, which demands greater unity, more submission of member state policy to the EU, and subordination to Community aims (see, for example, the Lisbon Treaty, Articles 4:3, 24:3, 29, 32 and 34:1).

The EU is of course by the nature of its size the major trading partner with many of these states, but also the area of wealth into which many people seek to escape, or into which criminals seek to trade their wares. As such, working with these bordering states is an essential first point for any wider, global role.

Democracy or dem-what-cracy?

Yet the EU so often becomes that which it argues it is opposed to. It talks of democracy and allowing the people to choose, and on the first page of the document demands submission to the European neighbourhood policy (ENP). "The ENP should be a policy of the Union with the Member States aligning their own bilateral efforts in support of its overall political objectives". Immediately, the voter-chosen foreign policies of EU member states must be curtailed to the EU's own aims. This is of course rarely better illustrated than in the failed 'save-the-Euro' negotiations in Brussels, when David Cameron said 'no', finally reflecting the will of the British people, and prompting outbursts of disgust and rage from the French and Germans, as if there was no right to say no. Promoting democracy abroad is a grand aim, but one must first check it is operational at home. The EU's democratic deficit does not need documenting yet again here, but the falling voter-turnouts reflect the popular view that real choice often does not exist, and government's do not really listen to the people. The events in Greece are a prime example.

Showing resolve

Pages 2-3 of the report further extend this European cultural imperialist view. "Some partners may want to move further in their integration effort, which will entail a greater degree of alignment with EU policies and rules leading progressively to economic integration in the EU Internal Market. The EU does not seek to impose a model or a ready-made recipe for political reform, but it will insist that each partner country’s reform process reflect a clear commitment to universal values that form the basis of our renewed approach."

Thus the views that the EU represents are de facto of the highest quality and occupy the moral high-ground...thus surely undermining the same support for freedom of thought and expression that it also wants to promote, whilst denying the Christian heritage that produced many of the values.

The EU must fix itself first, and then show that its policies have mettle. If a country does not reform, so states the ENP, it will risk losing financing from the EU. The financing is thus conditional. This is good: but what will the EU do when an Islamic government is elected which restricts, by popular consent, the very rights the EU claims to believe in? And will the EU fund civil society groups, via its 'European Endowment for Democracy', when the regimes suppressing them are the very regimes that hold Europe's oil supplies...?

Fueling fire

It is certainly an admirable aim to tackle the sources of instability and conflict in the EU's neighbourhood. Yet the European version is focused only on the material, failing to recognise or offer a solution to the ideological. Extremism does not come only from economic sources. Poverty is certainly fuel for the flames, but as many states and societies have embraced liberalisation and the global forces the EU represents, so have people turned to ideologies opposed to these very things. Pursuing the material will in fact fuel the same sources of conflict the EU seeks to quash.

The ENP re-states the EU's position of not recognising border changes brought about by the use of force. This is in general an admirable principle, yet falls apart when one considers Kosovo. Most of the EU member states have recognised Kosovo, an independent state-let forged by the use of Western force. Yet Spain, Slovakia, Greece and Romania are amongst the states not recognising Kosovo, apparantly upholding the EU's own principles, whilst the rest of the EU looked the other way.

An effective EU neighbourhood policy is ultimately only relevant if the EU can agree to function as one block, which requires political unity. Yet there are too many internal divisions and too much hypocrisy within Europe already. Only when the EU can live up to its own ideals can it have a successful neighbourhood policy.

Considering that either the entire Eurozone will collapse, or many of its members must leave, zero growth is extremely optimistic, even taking account of the figures being produced and massaged by the pro-integration, pro-Euro, pro-federalist Commission.

According to the Commission, as the economies of Europe stagger along, so to will the employment markets of the member states of the European Union. High unemployment will be the norm and remain consistent as the labour markets generally stagnate, though the Commission noted that in some states the labour market will perform better than in others, implicitly confirming the failure of the fourth 'freedom' of the European Union - the freedom for movement of labour. As labour is predominantly bound to the nation states of the EU, member governments are placed in difficult positions - take care of the people who elected them, by seeking to competitively align their national economy vis-a-vis other EU states within the confines of the EU bureacracy, or, play the unity game and inflict suffering on their own people for the sake of incompetent governments elsewhere in Europe and for the sake of the European dream.

The Commission noted that a highly volatile market scenario remained as the accounts of the Southern EU states are unravelled and put under scrutiny, and a large 'downside risk' that shares, investments and securities will decline across Europe as investors flee the ageing, uncompetitive, red-tape bound bureaucracy of Brussels.

Crisis breeds integration

This actually adds impetus to the calls from Euro-idealists for further integration, as the long-predicted collapse of the Euro under the inherent economic strains within starkly places two contrasts before Europe’s politicians – pull out of Europe and face a tumultuous adjustment process (though of course the focus remains only on the short adjustment period – the longer benefits are not discussed), or do the logical thing and integrate further. Wasting no time, Jose Manuel Barroso on the 17th November pointed these things out: “Markets, investors demand a stronger governance of the euro area. It is not just a political issue for those like me and many of you that share a passion for a stronger Europe. It is now a matter of common sense to have a stronger economic governance…in the European Union”. Barroso sees it clearly – once you are on the slope of a common currency, the markets and economic necessities demand ever further integration.

A long time ago

Of course, it was all so good in 2000, when Tony Blair and the other leaders of Europe invented the Lisbon Agenda for growth, aiming to transform Europe between 2000 and 2010 into the "most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs...". Almost every word seems to have been written to mock the EU of today, twelve years later!

Wrong focus

The Lisbon Agenda's focus on the learning economy was a key mistake, as however much we can have ideas and be creative, all the actual productivity of creative people is tied to physical production. Financial traders buy and sell stock in real companies making real things. Big-Four accountancy firms audit and consult with companies making and selling real products to meet needs. Attempts to improve the education system in order to develop the knowledge economy have also largely failed, as investment banks raid the traditional sources of quality, like Oxford and Cambridge, for engineering or physics graduates, silently shunning the victims of the state-school system.

The focus on 'knowledge' itself can also be questioned, as knowledge without integrity is very dangerous. Reckless spending by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, and the Greek, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and even French governments, has exposed the 'knowledge' of left-wing economics. The debt-leveraging of Lehman Brothers' Richard Fuld might have seemed very clever once, but the day to repay always arrives.

A crisis has always been inevitable, but it will clear the debts and set the scene to start again. Some States will sacrifice more sovereignty, growth and flexibility to Germany's Bundesbank, and in so doing, create the new Europe – a rump controlled from Berlin. The rest may indeed be flocking to use a new Euro, called the British Pound. With their own experiments in tatters, it could be that the Pound becomes the currency of choice where the Euro once ruled!

Take Hans Tietmeyer, the President of the Bundesbank in 1991, for example. He noted that "a European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy". His statement is quite clear - sovereignty will be lost by joining the Euro. But how much sovereignty? Let's ask Wim Duisenberg, ex-President of the European Central Bank. "The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is...a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe." That is definitive.

Gerhard Schroeder, former German Chancellor and an architect of monetary union, also had this to say (on the 30th August 1999): "The introduction of the common currency was in no way just an economic decision. Monetary Union is demanding that we Europeans press ahead resolutely with political integration."

In case we believe that this is all a German view point, lets throw Sir Edward George, former Governor of the Bank of England, into the mix. In April 2000, he made it clear that any move to scrap the Pound as Britain's currency would be "fundamentally a political rather than an economic issue" and would involve "ceding control over important aspects of public policy".

The former Spanish Prime Minister, Filipe Gonzales, in 1998 also had this to say: "The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community....It is a decision of an essentially political nature. We need this United Europe...we must never forget that the euro is an instrument for this project."

From the start Europe has been a political project to unite the continent. Former French President, and author of the European Constitution, Valerie Giscard D'Estaing and his friend, former Chancellor of West Germany, Helmut Schmidt, have both been clear on this. In the International Herald Tribune in October 1997, Mr Schmidt said "One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us (Giscard and he) were the first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political project."

And the last quote we will leave to Romano Prodi, former President of the European Commission, speaking to the European Parliament on 13th October 1999. It has just about everything you could need, including references to ancient Rome. "We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political entity...For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire we have the opportunity to unite Europe".

This is just one collection of quotes from the people who built, operated and ran the European Union and the Euro project. Whatever British politicians say, these are the facts. And one thing is very clear - the Euro is a political project, and because of that, it will not fail. Yes, the Eurozone may get smaller, and a two-speed Europe probably will emerge, but whatever suffering is caused, as long as the political will remains, and Merkel and Sarkozy have shown that it does, then the Euro is safe.

The questions remain for those outside, like Britain. How much longer will the public buy the line that "we can influence Europe by being in Europe" when we are clearly in the second tier? And how much longer can the political parties and governments that form in Westminster go on saying that the EU is a trading block? Let's hope, for not too much longer.

Obviously this group does not focus on economics, but instead on providing specialist information on the challenges being brought by advances in Science – such issues as Stem-Cell testing, animal cloning, nanotechnology and genetic modification. Lisbon commits the EU to promoting the advance of science and technology in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, and in Articles 6 and 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, states that it (the EU) will protect and preserve human health, but apart from these references, the EU’s commitment to medical ethics is not exactly clearly spelt out in the treaties.

The EGE group has been in existence for 10 years already, and has been established with a further 5 year mandate from 2011 to 2016, and is appointed by the Commission President. The President of the Commission is responsible for assigning the EGE its work programme each year, and the oversight for this, and day-to-day running and planning, is organised by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers.

The current composition of the Group consists of, almost exclusively, Western European people. Only one Professor from Poland represents Eastern Europe – Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic are all not represented. By expertise, the group consists of 4 Theologians, 5 lawyers or legal experts, and the rest being professors of health, ethics, medicine and genetics. The maximum number of experts in the group can be fifteen.

The EGE is legally paid for by European taxpayers. The costs produced by the group are assigned to Commission expenses, and as such, we pay for this group. And do the taxpayers get value for money? Legally, the members of the group are required to attend a minimum of 4 meetings a year, hardly demanding, and the EGE has the power to set up working and research groups, which would surely simply do the roles of the myriads of civil society groups and professional organisations that already do this work.

Anyone wanting expert moral and ethical advice can turn to such organisations as the British Medical Association, The Institute of Medical Ethics, the General Medical Council, The Ethox Centre at Oxford University, the established churches who have expert commissions themselves, or private charities, such as CARE (Christian Action Research and Education). All of these organisations, and hundreds more, can and do provide expert advice for free, costing the taxpayer nothing. And in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU does commit itself to consulting with such groups, removing the need for its own ‘in-house’ department (Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Article 17.3).

As such, why the Commission sees a need for a group to advise it on ethics, when most probably every country in the EU has similar civil-society groups capable of providing this information at zero cost to Europe’s taxpayers, is a mystery. It is surely yet another example of the statist thinking at the heart of the EU project, demanding more and more power and departments to feed off taxpayers money, and the self-obsession and insecurity that grips the EU institutions, as they grapple for power and attempt to make themselves feel important, to feel that they matter.

Perhaps the moral-theologians inside the group can take some time off from biology and read some of Friedrich Hayek’s philosophical works, and then feed some of his conclusions to the Commission. We can but dream.

Hence Denmark, under his leadership, cantered off to war in Iraq alongside the United States, in the hope of gaining increased political weight and significance in the world.

Naturally, Rasmussen also saw cooperation with the European Union as another way to increase Danish leverage, resulting in which he became a leading contender for Tony Blair’s desired job: President of Europe.

Thankfully the people of Europe were allowed a say and the chance to reject these follies, and thus Blair went off globe-trotting and Rasmussen became Secretary-General of NATO.

However, as Rasmussen’s actions and words testify, he has not left his pro-European views behind. Indeed, he often sounds like a man with a vision to merge his organisation into the European Union.

An article he recently wrote for the journal Foreign Affairs, entitled ‘Nato in Libya’, reflected that NATO had the firepower and capabilities to do everything it wanted. The constraints it had were not in terms of physical assets, but political will. However, he feels that in the long-term, the constant cuts in European defence spending are a real danger to future operations.

European’s just can not think forwards. Whether it is the inevitable problems from the ‘one-size-fits-all’ Euro, or the inability to predict a conflict in Libya (most Europeans thought Afghanistan would be the last major military venture), European policy makers increasingly are ignoring hard-facts. Sadly, British ones are also heading the same way - the defence cuts and sharing of aircraft carriers being classic examples.

Rasmussen fears for the decline in European defence spending, noting that as the world gets richer, more is spent on defence (in China and India), but in Europe it is the other way round. Increasingly, the defence burden of spending falls on America and Canada in NATO - 21% is now paid by Europeans, leaving 79% for the North Americans to pay for. Rasmussen notes the European tendency to talk about ‘soft-power’, and rejects that too - it is not soft-power that stopped genocide in Libya, or soft-power that halted the Taliban, or stopped Slobodan Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia.

At this point Rasmussen’s European intentions come to the fore. Pointing out that the US is not always going to lead, and faces it’s own debt crisis, he see’s a great opportunity for the EU to step up and be a global player. For that to happen, he argues, their needs to be better and more efficient defence spending (by which he means more cooperation and less duplication of what one state is doing by another) and greater cooperation in the pooling of resources between NATO and the EU.

Rasmussen clearly wants to push the EU to use the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty to integrate further. He wants Article 24.1, “the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence”, to be implemented and for Article 24.2, the integration of Member States defence capabilities, to become a reality. Lisbon contains all the provisions for Rasmussen’s dream: Article 42 demands that Member States must provide their military forces for EU expeditions and ventures, and that a new body, the European Defence Agency, will coordinate military activities and military build-up across Europe, to improve European capabilities, exactly as Rasmussen wants. This is not about individual states developing, it is about a top-down approach which sees the resources of states being coordinated for the development of a European force.

Article 42 has rules on Permanent Structured Cooperation for those states which want to go further, allowing and encouraging deeper integration and cooperation than the treaty was permitted to talk about.

It is clear that, as the Secretary-General of NATO, Rasmussen is concerned about its future. NATO is facing a US president who is losing interest, economic problems, and a European base which is reluctant to spend any money. However, the Lisbon Treaty contains all the articles and powers that he dreams of, to integrate Europe and build a stronger force. If Europe can start this process, the overlap between NATO and the EU can be removed and slowly NATO will be merged into Brussels.

Article 21 of Lisbon does demand that the EU build relations with NATO.

However, from Brussels’ point of view, it could easily be argued that NATO is a useful tool that will never be fully redundant. Whilst Brussels would love to take most of NATO under its own control, it is a useful cover and umbrella for unpopular actions. European forces could be deployed under the NATO name when the EU is too weak to admit it wants to do something, and of course, NATO ties the US into European security, which ultimately is a safety net if Europe continues to axe defence spending.

Rasmussen’s view of the world is very much shaped by his Danish background, and his belief that Denmark could never impact the world without integrating into some greater alliance. Facing a declining NATO, Rasmussen wants to integrate it into the European Union. And such an achievement would surely mark him out for a job as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

One of the most appalling decisions which Gordon Brown made was to sell of half of Britain’s gold reserves and then watch as the price of gold took off, making the country a massive collective loss. The price British gold was sold at was less than a third of the present price. However, one of the better decisions was witholding Tony Blair from selling the nation’s future to Brussels by joining the Euro.

The Euro is naturally in trouble now. Surely the Euro-area will have to split, and a two-speed Europe emerge. The collapse of the Euro is virtually unthinkable, because it is not an economic project, but a political one, and we all know how committed Eurocrats are to the dream of a united Europe. It is worth taking a look at the gold reserves of Europe at this moment, as gold prices remain sky-high and different economies, mainly the Southern ones, struggle with debt.

Gold reserves in Europe

Europe’s gold reserves tell an interesting story. We can definitely see some groups that exist. Eastern Europe stands out as one – these states acquired gold reserves and have largely kept them. They do not have much, but what they have is stable. These countries include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.

In this group we can also place bigger states with larger reserves, such as Finland, Germany, Denmark, France, Sweden and, more surprisingly, Italy and Greece. Sweden has been recording a gradual decrease in its supplies – 170 tonnes in 2005 and now only 125 now. Italy has registered a slight increase over the last 20 years in terms of its weight of gold in tonnes. Greece is the anomaly here – whilst its economy is ladened with debts it cannot pay, it has registered a slight increase in gold reserves since 2005. It now has around 111 tonnes. This places Greece in an interesting position. A gold sell off would quickly raise a lot of money, especially now, to deal with the debts. However, in the long-term, it will undermine Greece’s future. And who would take this Greek gold? Surely the central European power-house economies, like Germany, which would strengthen the disparities between Greece and Germany, adding more pressure on Athens to exit the Euro. Athens has done well to hold onto its gold, but the financial realities of the world mean that something has to break, or the Greek’s will be indebted to the rest of Europe for a very long time...

Finally we can see those states which have registered large and continuous decreases. It is no surprise to see Ireland on this list, along with leading federalist states such as Belgium and Luxembourg. Joining them is the Netherlands, Spain, Austria and Portugal, though Portugal’s decrease is more gradual – 462 tonnes in 2005, 382 now.

The effect of gold

This is important, for we have always used gold, and money, as a store place of value, and as a medium of exchanging that value. However, as Lord William Rees-Mogg has regularly noted, gold has proved a far better functionary for the usage of storing value than paper currencies. In terms of its purchasing power in relation to physical assets, little has changed with 300 years ago. Yet we know that with paper money, what one pound could buy 20 years ago compared with today has dramatically changed. Most paper currencies have in fact lost 98% of their purchasing power in just the last 100 years.

The global financial system, for the large part based on Fractional Reserve Banking, breeds inflation and thus the decline in the long-term value of paper money. As most economists have noted, the whole ‘quantative easing’ experiment has in fact been a competitive devaluation of the currency by printing more money, reducing the pounds value, making exports cheaper, but making everyone in the UK poorer on the world stage.

And so what does this mean? As most people know, especially the Conservatives in government, the excessive spending of the past needs to be reduced, because the massive debts Labour left the UK are no longer underpinned with a massive gold supply. The Pound is certainly no longer ‘as good as gold’. This is Labour’s economic legacy.

The Euro, however, is in a different situation. Italy, France, and Germany – core EU powerhouse states, have large and stable gold reserves. Looking purely at these countries, one could easily conclude that the Euro is potentially very strong. Statistically, Greece is in this category too. But Greece has ladenened itself with paper-money debt. This leaves two choices: creditors lend the Greeks money and the debt is restructured, or Greece needs to abandon the Euro, sell off gold, and massively devalue its economy. The first option is politically very difficult – why should sensible Germans pay for lavish Greeks, whilst the second option is economically far more sensible. With Portugal, Spain and Ireland also having economic troubles, and also having reduced their gold supplies, they too find their economies undermined. Of course, the Euro is a political project, and reluctance to reduce the Eurozone’s size is immense, but the economic reality will kick in soon. The Eurozone core is strong – strong economies, strong gold reserves; but the periphery needs to be cut-off. The two-speed Europe is on its way.

Of course, the idea that the media in Europe is without manipulation is wildly wide of the mark. The BBC is the first institution to come to mind here. Its constant pro-European reporting, especially when Labour were in power and during the Treaty of Lisbon debates (when Labour rigged the voting to avoid controversial topics and had instead had entire debates dedicated to the words in Article 191 “in particular combating climate change”) revealed what has already been widely reported, that the BBC has incubated an inherent left-wing bias.

Of course many of the ‘right-wing’ papers have little to celebrate in the way of reporting accuracy either, but when they are reporting what researchers in Westminster have spent months investigating, then Brussels should really stop trying to defend itself and its statist agenda.

Talk to the people inside the EU institutions, and they freely admint that plans exist for national tax harmonisations and integration of health services, but admission of this publicly is political anathema and the people who say admit this are easily silenced. The Commission has also resorted to spending our money on ‘debunking’ what it says are ‘myths’ on its internet homepage. The myths it wants to ‘correct’ include The Times reporting that Brussels issued regulations that Banana’s had to be straight. Unfortunately, the Commission did issue regulations regarding the straightness of bananas. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 from the 16.09.1994 clearly states in Annex 1 of the regulation that banana’s must be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature”.

Or how about the Daily Mail reporting that Eurocrats wanted to introduce a common European CV format? Unable to deny this, the Commission defends itself simply by arguing that it would not be enforced, just suggested because discrimination could occur if you did not use it.

Both this and the bananas regulation clearly shows the problem. The Commission, from European culture, feels a need to regulate to such a detailed and minute level, that they even dictate how a CV is written and whether a banana has the appropriate curvature. The problem with this is that it destroys human creativity, market competition and human ingenuity. The best people get jobs sometimes because their CV’s are the best! A standard format might help those who did not show ingenuity, but for those who take a risk, and innovate, the result would be failure.

Then there was the claim that a short film promoting the EU with the title “Let’s come together” was soft porn. Anyone who has seen the film can not really deny this (see for yourself at : http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,492 131,00.html). The softly smutty message and usage of sex to try and sell the EU is a sign of how low Brussels can go. Interestingly, it shows how disconnected Brussels is as well. In an era when the Health Directorate-General is warning about the rising numbers of sexually transmitted diseases across Europe, and as there is growing awareness of the psychological consequences of pornography, the Media arm of the Commission went about promoting promiscuity.

The list of course is endless, but issuing daft and pointless regulations and then trying to justify them will win no-one’s respect. The European media is right to ridicule the Commission; it is just a sad reflection that instead of listening, the bureaucrats continue as before, becoming more detached from the incredulity of the public of Europe’s nations.

A DEFRA report, published not long ago, noted that diesel vehicles still have similar emission rates to those of 15 years ago, and have a more serious impact on human health than their petrol rivals.

Many respiratory diseases, such as asthma, seem to have a stronger link to diesel than to petrol cars, because disel emissions are far higher in ‘soot’ content, which has more of an impact on human health when breathed, than Carbon DiOxide.

However, there are also concerns regarding the impact of diesel on global warming also. A 2002 study from Stanford University’s Professor Mark Jacobson, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, argued that the soot emissions from diesel were in fact more harmful in terms of heating the earth quickly. The soot warms the air more than CO2, and stays in the atmosphere for much less time. Thus reducing diesel emissions will have a bigger and more noticeable short-term impact than reducing CO2 emissions. Jacobson noted at the time of his study that the European Union countries were almost entirely promoting diesel in terms of their taxation regimes as opposed to petrol (Britain was the notable exception).

Fast-forward to 2011, and it appears that little has changed. The European Commission’s Environmental Directorate General, in seeking to reduce the EU’s carbon emissions, proposed in 2007 to target cars via taxation according to their CO2 emissions, which would, again, defacto, promote diesel. Whilst the EU is also seeking to reduce the sulphur content of diesel, and increase the ethanol ‘bio-fuel’ content, policy in this area is compromised by the EU’s lack of power, lack of consensus and lack of vision.

The Commission has a programme called “Intelligent Energy - Europe”, which promotes energy saving research into new technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cell development and carbon capture innovations. The EU is also focusing on improving infrastructures links to reduce wasteful traffic jams, though this is one of the few examples of the Commission recognising the impact of fumes on human health. The Commission’s Health Directorate General appears to have no references to how fumes damage the health of the citizens of Europe.

It is as ever the private sector which is leading the way in terms of fruitful investment and innovation. Companies like Cella Energy, in Oxfordshire, are pioneering the development of hydrogen powered cars and alternatives to fossil fuels. And the competitive forces of competition in Formula One motor racing has produced kinetic energy recovery systems, which harvest the vast amounts of energy produced under braking and then uses it later to help power the vehicle. These developments are notable for the absence of European Union funding or absence of direct European Commission involvement, calling into question the value of the EUs investments and continued use of taxpayers money in this area, and the ability of the state to adapt and innovate as the private sector does.

The flame behind the smoke: There is, of course, cause for concern. United States military personnel have for a long time been disappointed in the inabilities of their allies to keep pace and with the lack of political will to give the required financial commitments. Despite treaty obligations, NATO members have consistently failed to match the 2 per cent of GDP spending commitment required, resulting in an ever deepening gulf between US capabilities, and European ones.

However, the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and United States is strongest behind the scenes, in the field of intelligence. Here, the UK offers the US a partner par excellence and one that Brussels is jealous of – the European Parliament has already investigated the relationship in 2001, with suspicions that the UK is helping the US spy on Europe, and that this undermined the UK’s Treaty commitments in relation to Articles 11 and 12 of the (then) Treaty on European Union, to enhance political solidarity. The amusing thing about this is the comparison with the views of Dr Robert Niblett, who gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs committee, who argued that, once the US did indeed fear a united Europe could undermine the United States, but, having seen how Europe runs, now has no such fears!

Digging for the truth: Closer analysis of the files released by Wikileaks shows that the real subject of investigation should be the quality of the journalism, and not the quality of the UK’s relationship with the US.

Regarding allegations of the US spying on the Foreign Office, closer examination reveals that actually the US officials simply reported that Ivan Lewis, Junior Foreign Office Minister in 2009, was a bully with tendencies to be happy one day, and depressed the next. Such information is undoubtedly useful when working with a partner, because you can understand more about where they are coming from, why they do certain things, and not to be offended when someone’s mood changes suddenly. And the information was gathered from chatting with FCO officials, not by spying on people in undercover operations.

And when it comes to the ‘shocking’ news that the US is using British nuclear secrets to bargain with the Russians, again closer examination blows a hole through any doubts that the US and UK don’t work well together.

Some defence analysts were drafted in to comment on the story, claiming that with the US transferring serial numbers of missiles to the Russians, over time, the Russians could understand the size of the British nuclear arsenal, and that of course would undermine official policy of not stating exactly how large it is.

A number of points quickly arise here: firstly, William Hague himself publicly stated we have “up to 160” nuclear missiles. Secondly, if the Russian intelligence agencies don’t already know that information, then they are really doing a poor job. Thirdly, we should look at what Washington originally asked, and how they responded to Whitehall’s refusal. The original request was to give Russia much more detailed information, and when London refused, Washington did not betray us, but rather obeyed and did not hand over the information. Only serial numbers of missiles manufactured in the US were given.

And why were these given? Because missiles manufactured in the US can have a dual purpose – they can go to allies, like the United Kingdom, or for US-national security uses. So in the interest of transparency with Russia, and in the interests of moving towards a nuclear free world, the US was obliged to give notification of where missiles it was making were going. Refusing this would leave Russia wondering if the missile was being secretly deployed in the US, or being sold abroad.

And finally, if the UK really does not want to be in such a position, then the UK should stop buying American. That would leave us with the option of doing it ourselves, doing it in collaboration with the EU, or buying Russian or Chinese.

The last two options are obviously non-starters, and when one considers the technological inferiority, the economic problems and political opposition that an EU nuclear weapons project would meet, the European option also becomes a non-starter.

Where do our interests lie? The UK should re-evaluate carefully our obligations and where our interest does lie. Being part of an integrating Europe that has ambitions to rival the United States can not sit happily with deeply integrated UK-US intelligence networks. And let us remember what our obligations, under the Lisbon Treaty’s ‘Treaty on European Union’, are.

The UK is committed to taking no actions that could hinder the EU’s attainment of its objectives (Title 1, Article 4). Under Articles 24 and 32, Member States are to converge their actions and support the European Union’s actions, and are under instruction to show mutual political solidarity and refrain from anything that is contrary to the EU’s interests.

If the UK believes it can walk the thin line and be best friends of the United States and of Europe, then the Treaty says otherwise.Member States are to aim for a convergence of policies (Article 24.2), because the EU is 100% aiming for a common defence (when the European Council decides unanimously (article 42.2). And Member States are also to make their military capabilities available for EU usage (42.3), meaning the dissemination of secrets and technology across Europe.

The EU is committed to developing a secure area and can make deals with third, neighbouring, states, that the UK would have to acknowledge (Article 8). This could see deals made with Russia, for example, that contradict and compromise US aims.

Essentially, the EU’s competences cover all areas of Foreign and Security Policy now (Article 24) and as such the UK finds itself increasingly compromised as a trustworthy and solidly staunch ally of the United States. Leaving things as they are, the UK will find that the US has no choice other than to walk away, because of the baggage our European ‘family’ will be bringing. That day will be a great loss for the UK, the US and for the world.