I hope my '100 Reasons' report goes some way to challenging the message of the climate change alarmists - I am glad to see the Daily Express runs an article on the report on the front cover today, in '100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL', and in the Telegraph, Climate change is 'natural not man-made'.

Last November, the European Commission proposed raising the salaries of 44,500 EU civil servants by 3.7%. This is absolutely ludicrous particularly at a time of financial crisis where several member states have been applying pay freezes to their civil servants.

The EU civil servants already enjoy high salaries, for instances a senior director general may receive over €17,000 per month, plus all the benefits such as family allowances, expatriation allowance, installation allowance, travel expenses, removal expenses, daily subsistence allowance as well as low taxes.

The Commission decides to reduce or raise civil servants’ salaries according to a staff regulation formula based on two factors: trends in civil service salaries in eight member states, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the cost of living in Brussels. The pay rise is due on 1 January and is based on Eurostat’s data from those member states civil servant salaries between July 2008 and July 2009. Hence, the measures recently introduced by member states to curb budget deficits were not taken into account.

The Council must take a decision, by QMV, on the Commission's proposal by 31 December. Fifteen EU member states, including UK, Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, have rejected the pay rise due to the economic crisis. They are trying to invoke a Staff Regulations’ clause which reads “If there is a serious and sudden deterioration in the economic and social situation within the Community, assessed in the light of objective data supplied for this purpose by the Commission, the latter shall submit appropriate proposals (…).” However, according to the Council legal service there are limited grounds for rejecting the pay rise proposed by the Commission as it is in line with the law.

There was a similar situation in the 70s, during the oil crisis, which ended up with the Commission winning the case at the European Court of Justice.

In the meantime, the Council civil servants are on strike today (14 December) asking the member states to “play by the rules.” Staff at the European Parliament and European Commission is also threaten to strike this week.

According to the EuropeanVoice the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, has said “We have to respect the law. It's not a political choice; it's implementation of a legal commitment. ” Hence, if member states continue to oppose to the pay rise they would be taken to the ECJ.

In compiling this assessment, I am grateful to the real hard-working academic researchers and professors; the integrity and arguments of Roger Helmer MEP; the ‘Friends of Science’ organisation for providing facts and myths on climate change; the United States organisation, ‘No Cap-and-Trade Coalition’; for the detailed research by Dr. Singer in his editing of the report, ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’, (The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), published by The Heartland Institute in 2008 and also his report with Dr. Idso, ‘Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)’, also published by the Heartland Institute in 2009, where many of the central arguments are drawn from. Also, the work and insights by Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s report ‘Climategate: C au ght Green-handed! Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate Scandal’, Science & Public Policy Institute, 2009 have been useful. I have attempted to credit all other researchers and organisations in the content of the report. Other valuable papers include Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner in Executive Intelligence Review, 22 June 2007 and John McLean’s paper ‘The IPCC can’t count its “expert scientists”: Author and reviewer numbers are wrong’ in January 2009, all of which I have used to compile my pamphlet.

1. Politicians and activists say we must tackle global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no real scientific proof that the current warming is c au sed by the rise of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.

2. Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, whilst ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: extreme poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

3. Politicians and activists say we must tackle global warming, pointing to rising sea levels but the ongoing rise in the sea level does not depend on short-term temperature changes, and in any case the rate of sea-level increases has been steady since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

4. Activists and dubious “scientists” provide ice core proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels, but as Professor Ian Clark, an expert in Palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, and other scientists have claimed, warmer periods of the earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

5. For activists, global warming is accompanied by raised CO2 levels but after World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions – while global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

6. As Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and many other scientists have said, climate change is too complicated to be c au sed by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds. Stott said: “The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.”

7. It is a myth that the “hockey stick” graph (used by the UN’s IPCC) proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase, bec au se significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. It is known that the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate, although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, which some will recall led to a “Global Cooling” scare.

8. A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, which is an indication that ocean warming is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

9. Since the c au se of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

10. As Peter Lilley MP stated in the House of Commons on 5th November 2009, “…fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world.” There is no genuine belief in man-made global warming theory bec au se it simply does not add up.

11. The United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, was exposed as seriously troubled when new information was released (under threat from Freedom of Information legislation), demonstrating that substantial numbers of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists had serious concerns, which the Panel rejected as it publicly claimed to have formed a “consensus”. There was no such agreement. There was serious dissent.

12. A computer hacker released a number of files and e-mails from the University of East Anglia ’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), a Unit which works closely with a handful of other meteorological institutes around the world, which details the source of the basic temperature data that underpins the “science” of global warming. The evidence from this episode demonstrated that the small group of scientists, with some associations to the IPCC, had been manipulating the essential data, applying “adjustments” to create or exaggerate warming trends. They are now the subject of an inquiry. This is the exclusive data on which the modern global warming hypothesis rests.

13. The United Kingdom ’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data. Their new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

14. Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs), wind companies can sell their energy at an almost guaranteed price. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year, and Ofgem calculates that it will amount to about £4 billion by 2020.

15. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

16. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely bec au se he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

17. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

18. Even the head of Britain ’s Climate Change watchdog has predicted that households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions in response to nonsensical climate change targets.

19. A healthy public relations collusion between politicians across the globe spread the message that 4,000 IPCC scientists believed in global warming, when actually there were only c. 3,750 people, and when we remove the duplications and the total number of au thors plus reviewers, it drops from 3,750 to 2,890, and when we consider that in about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions, then there is even less. In fact, we eventually get to the predicament in which 53 au thors and seven favourable reviewers make up a total of 60 people who explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. That is one scientist for every two countries.

20. In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

21. While the wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies”, this form of power involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers. The burden on consumers will grow in line with attempts to achieve its targets – as the recent OFGEM report has confirmed.

22. In pursuit of global warming ideology, wind farms have been erected but bec au se wind is unpredictably and continuously variable, wind power requires back-up. Even the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75% back-up is required, making them highly inefficient.

23. In the UK, a group of scientists informed the media that we are “at the top end of IPCC estimates”, and that global temperatures “could increase by 6 degrees”, but the truth is that global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions, and that there is indeed no need for alarmism.

24. The small (+0.7 deg C) increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. The predictions of the IPCC’s computer models continue to fly in the face of observed data.

25. Professor Plimer – Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide – has provided an au thoritative sketch of 4½ billion years of earth climate history, stating that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity” bordering on madness.

26. Throughout the earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than today’s climate and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

27. A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis c au sed by global warming.

28. Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can actually act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

29. The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-c au sed global warming clearly predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics, but former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said that radio temperature data for the upper troposphere actually shows there is no such hotspot.

30. The argument that climate change is a result of anthropogenic global warming is the argument of flat earthers.

31. The aggressive and ideological manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire transnational decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

32. William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

33. As Canada has shown the world, targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and that didn’t work for the country.

34. News announced by the Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical, and based on solar and astronomical factors.

35. In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP rightly said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”. Are we really continuing along the same lines?

36. The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

37. The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

38. The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 but this is severely inaccurate says a professor at Ontario Trent University , J. Graham Cogley, and he believes, quite rightly, the UN au thors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

39. In pursuit of hysterical climate change policy, the EU under existing Kyoto obligations has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, Lord Lawson has warned. To make it worse, the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China , who it has paid billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which they had manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. The EU emissions trading scheme itself has been a complete failure.

40. It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (as stated under the Mann et al. “hockey stick” curve) but the Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

41. Michael Mann of Penn State University has shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age do in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work that produced the now infamous hockey stick graph that showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so and a recent dramatic upturn.

42. The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date – as it has been under the Kyoto system – is very expensive and has no bearing on political realities.

43. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

44. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever and that “global warming” science is settled.

45. The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC.

46. The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather (including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires), but the last century – during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia – did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

47. The IPCC says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increase of tropical sea surface temperatures” but despite the supposed global warming of the twentieth century, there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally or in any of the specific oceans.

48. In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions all of which had programmed into them the 0.20 deg C long-term IPCC trend and found that in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly!

49. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.”

50. Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure.

51. In pursuit of an appalling European climate change policy, the first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne, meaning that the system did not reduce emissions at all. And the second phase, from 2008-2012, is likely to fail too.

52. In pursuit of climate change policy, the EU trading scheme, which has completely failed, actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting – which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

53. To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

54. In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens. It will impose a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States . The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700 or more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

55. Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated in a presentation of his research that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

56. Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the c au se of past temperature and climate change.

57. There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – to the contrary, it is changing temperatures which c au se changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

58. The last warm period ended less than 800 years ago and when thorough researchers compare and contrast these climate changes with changes in civilization and human standards, it is generally concluded that warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.

59. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.

60. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population.

61. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming.

62. The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth did not take place recently but actually took place around 700 million years ago.

63. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control.

64. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

65. How can politicians insist on global warming when the slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles, or even that in the last ten years, the earth has cooled slightly?

66. In line with climate change activist’s wishes, the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power and will cost around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years while the benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times. It is claimed by the government that the loss of around £65 billion will be compensated by the “non-monetary benefits”.

67. It is a myth that global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate bec au se accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.

68. Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

69. It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas bec au se greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and so CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere.

70. It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will c au se significant global warming bec au se computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing a great number of input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used. In this context, the IPCC predictions do not “prove” anything.

71. It is entirely inconsistent that the United Nations claimed to prove that man-made CO2 c au ses global warming while in a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft stating that “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases” and “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made c au ses”.

72. It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, bec au se nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

73. It is simply not true to claim that global warming will c au se more storms and other weather extremes bec au se, while regional variations may occur, there is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports these claims.

74. It is myth that receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming given that glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries.

75. It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising, bec au se that is natural variation and whilst the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The main Antarctic continent is actually cooling.

76. The IPCC claims “new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and range retractions are already widespread” and the “projected impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance, since global losses in biodiversity are irreversible (very high confidence)” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research.

77. The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as they have proven to be remarkably resilient to climate change. Most wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles involving temperature changes similar to or greater than those experienced in the twentieth century.

78. Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but the real state of sea levels is not what they have stated. Climate scientists have sought to measure the tide g au ge. Tide g au ging gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. Certain members in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), chose Hong Kong, which has six tide g au ges, and they chose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. It is known that this is a subsiding area. It is well known in geological terms that this is the only record which you should not use, but the IPCC has done so.

79. The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. This eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?

80. If one factors in for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?

81. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

82. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would c au se catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In the case of Antarctica , the research actually suggests the opposite: that CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an outcome.

83. The IPCC claims the climate variation due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is smaller than its estimated net anthropogenic contribution. A large body of scientific research suggests the opposite: that it is the sun that is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

84. The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” and will “increase malnutrition and consequent disorders.” In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels have played an indispensible role in making it possible to feed a growing global population.

85. The historical increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and into the future it will likely provide more of the same benefit.

86. The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years on the order of 70 percent for wheat, 28 percent for cereals, 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.

87. The total man-made CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

88. US President Barack Obama pledged cutting emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, representing a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels as he aims to reach a 41 percent reduction by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. However, target emissions for 2050 will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen. The ideology is wrong. The target is delusional.

89. The European Union, whose various 500 million peoples disagree with its emission targets, has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

90. Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

91. Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar-sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. Ottawa is asking that no agreement emerges from the summit which will act as an impediment to its economic growth.

92. India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, bec au se the economy is driven by carbon.

93. It is claimed that during the late 20th Century, the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached a high point of unprecedented magnitude. However, the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century, which falls within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years.

94. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw , Poland published his research that found that a change in earth’s temperature would have more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He “points out that cloudiness and water vapour [sic] are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were possible to double the global CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness.”

95. One petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the politician’s and media’s portrayal of Global Warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992, from Germany , with 4000 signatures. The Heidelberg Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro . By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has prompted hundreds more scientists to lend their support. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. Neither a statement of corporate interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the c au se of, the health and environmental problems that the globe faces. The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. The petition was wrongly ignored.

96. Another petition put forward by scientists trying to tell the world about the false portrayal of Global Warming was the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, from Germany with 110 signatures, signed up to a statement claiming that “As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the Climate Treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.” Again, the petition was wrongly ignored.

97. A petition presented by US scientists trying to tell the world that the Government’s portrayal of Global Warming is false, named the Oregon Petition Project (from California), stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is c au sing or will, in the foreseeable future, c au se catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” It has over 31,000 American scientist signatories. Still their voices are ignored.

98. A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concludes “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

99. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

100. Out of the 210 countries that adopted the Kyoto Protocol, only 32 actually ratified it. In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the country’s most prestigious technical institute, published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

Either Nick Reilly, the new chief of GM’s European operations, is absolutely mad or he really is the right man to fix the vast range of problems at the ailing carmaker for good. Having lost far more money than it has actually managed to occasionally make in recent years one may be forgiven for seeing this challenge as little short of a poisoned chalice for Reilly. Indeed, sceptics might argue that the US based GM parent company would shed few tears if Reilly fails to bring its problem child to heel and that it may not be that much longer before GM finally throws in the towel on its troubled European baby. Will that be the case? Could Nick Reilly, a thirty-four year veteran of the company, actually manage to sort out the Adam Opel and Vauxhall operation and secure more than just a short to medium term future? While it is probably true to say that there is no tougher volume automotive manufacturing nut to crack in Europe right now than the sorting out of GM Europe and its Opel and Vauxhall brands my personal view is that he can.

Following confirmation of the European appointment last month it had been hoped that Mr. Reilly would manage to work pretty damn fast to be in a position to confirm a formal business plan that we already know will include many thousands of job cuts in Belgium, Germany, Spain and the UK. However, we understand that the pre-Christmas target date is now considered as being tight and that it may well now slip into the early part of the new-year. Given the damage that was done politically and throughout the European company through the failed attempt to sell the Opel/Vauxhall operations to the Magna consortium it is imperative that Reilly has secured general agreement with the individual plant trade unions who must bear the brunt of the near 9,000 jobs that are expected to be removed across Europe and of course, with the governments themselves. To assist in the re-organisation GM has requested that governments fund a suggested EUR2.7bn overall reorganisation cost with the GM parent putting in EUR600m. So far, so good and Reilly was at least reported last week saying that he had received positive signals of likely government support. However, on the other side of the coin that there has as yet been little feedback from trade unions and workforce although our own view is that as there is little alternative and all too little bargaining power they will, following necessary noises, eventually acquiesce. Even so and even if agreement comes from both government and workers alike getting the leviathan GM Europe operation moving along the right lines will not be easy. Indeed, even assuming that the Antwerp plant is fairly quickly closed down and that the sizable job cuts planned for all four Adam Opel plants in Germany, the Luton, England van operation together with some in Spain and at the UK’s Ellesmere Port plant can be implemented during the first half of next year it could still take as long a five years plus substantially more investment funds before the future of GM Europe is secured. Indeed, while we would doubt any further attempt to sell the European operations would occur over the next two to three years we would not rule out the possibility that GM European operations might eventually be placed into some kind of partnership with another automaker.

Of course, the suggestion above is based on nothing but conjecture on my part. However, given that within three years Reilly might well have managed to turn GM Europe round to some kind of half decent profitability, that the new UK built Astra is doing well and that investment in plant, aimed at significantly reducing costs, plus much needed additional investment in new models that can successfully compete with models from the Japanese based stable, with those from Volkswagen, from Renault, from Peugeot, from Ford and others GM Europe should be in reasonably valuable position. Whilst there is plenty of evidence of failure of both merger and partnership amongst carmakers – look no further than Daimler/Chrysler for this – it is also true that partnerships amongst carmakers can and do work. For an example look no further than the shared ownership of Shanghai GM, seen by most as the jewel in the crown of GM’s foreign investments. And of course, five years from now, who might one believe having already entered the export game might just by then be looking to have car manufacturing operations in Europe? Could it possibly be the Chinese? By the way, which GM operations do you think Mr. Reilly has overseen through the last few years……?.........none other than China!

Back to reality though and for Reilly the next few weeks, months and maybe even couple of years will be fraught with great difficulty as he attempts to revive a brand (Opel) that some believe has lost its way and, restricted by government over what he might just have preferred to do in the game of taking out cost, bringing the Continental European operations of Opel kicking and shouting into the 21st century particularly when it comes to meeting the competition on cost, technology, quality and fashion. This though is a man that is very much up to the job in my view and one determined to succeed. Perhaps a year from now to the ordinary onlooker GM Europe might not look that much different than it does today but don’t let that thought kid you into believing that behind the large windows things won’t already be very different. Nevertheless, sales are unlikely to be that much better and we suspect that European markets probably will be no better than they are today. It is well recognised that there is far too much capacity in European car making and cutting one plant in Belgium won’t change the position much. More jobs will need to be lost further down the line and more closures than are currently planned cannot be ruled out. Turning GM Europe round may be almost as tough as turning Fiat round three years ago – but as Fiat proved, it can be done. Should it be done with government money? Of course not but although the EU will no doubt make a few rude noises over the GM Europe plot they will probably wave it through. Would it be better to let nature take its cause – survival of the fittest and all that allowing big chinks of GM Europe particularly on the Continent to go to the wall? Of course it would but as it isn’t going to happen we all have to get real and accept the inevitable bail out. Can GM work its way out of this provided it gets sufficient help? With Reilly in charge, I personally reckon that it can – just!

They tell me that immediately following the pre-budget report announcement yesterday that dealing rooms of some banks began to empty in disgust. Maybe and who could blame them given the manner that in order to attempt to clear its back the Brown government appears to have succeeded persuading the public that bankers are the pits, that they alone caused the problems last year and that they alone deserve nothing but disdain.

As has become typical in recent years following pre-budget report publication levels of confusion tend to increase as we search through the small print in the ‘green book’ trying to work out how various moves will be funded plus other raw detail of cuts within the Treasury document. PBR didn’t make for good reading as one read deeper into the pages but even more difficult to comprehend was the thirty-one page Bank Payroll Tax document that attempted to lay out the proposed draft legislation for implementing a special one off tax on banks and bonuses.

I will come back to the bonus issue another day. Meanwhile, having published a basic opinion on PBR last evening, with ample additional pre budget report analysis in the press today, much of which makes for excellent reading, plus plenty of negative opinion to run alongside, it is quite frankly not worth dwelling further on the financial aspects of yesterdays’ actual event. However, the political aspects of what took place yesterday are clearly formidable and cannot be ignored. My concern is the neat basis on which New Labour effectively transferred all responsibility for paying down the near £1.5 trillion debt to the next government. Typical I here you say but it is far more serious than that. Let us assume that the next government will be led by David Cameron and thus in his first budget the process of tightening begins. Accuse Gordon Brown of whatever you will but as the great survivor of the past two years Britain’s Prime Minister is politically adept. He knows as do we all that paying down that debt let alone bring the UK budget out of deficit will likely take two as opposed to a single parliament. Yesterday was of course a non event when it came to providing signals to the international community that Britain really was serious about balancing the books and putting forward a plan of the debt mountain would eventually be paid down. Darling told us that government spending would actually rise. None of this will be music to the ears of the rating agencies and having already done so to the ratings of both Spain and Greece, Britain could soon find itself losing the current AAA rating on its sovereign debt and thus be forced to pay higher for the extensive level of borrowings built up. Brown well knows that from an economic perspective the next five years will be amongst the toughest that any British government has faced since the 1970’s. True, as Mrs Thatcher and then Chancellors Howe and Lawson proved, Tory governments are pretty adept at paying down inherited debt. But this time is different. Firstly the debt itself will over the next few years continue to rise. Secondly, while some small scale recovery appears to be on the cards for a couple of quarters, we take the view that the economy is unlikely to begin growing seriously within the next three years. Thirdly, given that in general it is probably fair to assume that a great many economies across the world are likely to have resumed growth we must also consider that demand will also increase bringing with it additional problems and pressures. One fear that we have is a very old one here - rising inflation caused by increased global demand fro commodities such as oil. True, Britain should in point of fact be a beneficiary of global growth particularly with sterling likely to remain low against the dollar, Euro and Yen. Note here that we have avoided talking about a specific double dip recession in the UK although we continue to believe that this is a real possibility. Fourthly if we are right that rating agencies lower the current UK sovereign debt rating an incoming government will need to find extra resources to pay the interest on the debt.

The situation faced by an incoming government today may be considered almost as bad as any since the early post war period. Readers may remember that a couple of weeks ago I wrote a warning piece that reminded of the 1964 election scenario when a late bout of economic news improvement allowed sitting Conservative Prime Minister Alec Douglas Home made a last minute dash up the polls only to lose to Harold Wilson by a whisker. The concern is that even if they do win with a sufficient majority next year we could be talking of a single term Tory administration. It seems to me that it is absolutely imperative that somehow Messrs Cameron and Osborne turn the situation created by Labour in the Pre-Budget Report and that has cleverly laid a minefield for the next government to tread around. Clearly this will not be easy and it cannot be done by reversing policy such as abandoning the half percent rise in employer and employee NHS payments that come into play in 2011. Cameron and Osborne should play Labour at there own game of cause saying that whatever pain they intend to create will be very short term. While they are about it and while they are talking the idea of the UK being traditionally a very entrepreneurial nation they should design a menu that both aid and encourages business start ups together with tearing up New Labour policies that have significantly reduced the ability of the City of London to win against the rest of the world.

BRITAIN will rue the day that it passed over control of financial market regulation to the EU. As if a taster of what UK market participants may soon be about to suffer look no further today than gloating and distasteful remarks from French President Nicolas Sarkozy following the appointment of French Farm Minister, Michel Barnier as EU Internal Market Commissioner. Showing what may best be described as complete ignorance let alone absolute disregard for the real and underlying ‘devious’ reasons behind Barnier’s appointment M. Sarkozy’s unfortunate, arrogant and hardly diplomatic remarks may be seen as tantamount to a view that demands the world regards this French EU appointment victory as one that ensures the European economic model, warts and all, will permanently usurp what we have long regarded as the hugely successful Anglo-American model. Well, as far as I am concerned M. Sarkozy, you can tell that one to the Marines!

Despite failures and some obvious misgivings over the damage that has occurred over the past two years and despite most of us being ready and willing to receive strengthened regulation of the system to ensure that never again does it implode to such an extent as far as most global investors and traders are concerned there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Anglo-American model. I share that view. Meanwhile, the appointment of M. Barnier to what we may, tongue in cheek, ascribe as the new ‘chief of European regulatory police’ job was, according to M. Sarkozy, “nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism”. Really…..and neither I suppose was it anything to do with ensuring absolute free and open competition of European financial markets either! Indeed, not only will virtual continental wide regulation fail to open doors for EU nations to win more business from Asia, North America and other emerging markets I am in little doubt that what it will do is to steer far more business toward North America, the Middle East and will force Asian markets into developing their own financial markets further meaning nations such as China and Japan benefitting too.

There is little argument about it in my mind and Messrs Darling and Brown know it full well too - this whole very nasty European regulatory process is designed to permanently eradicate hard won competitive advantage that UK financial markets have enjoyed over very many years. What a great pity then that the UK electorate either don’t appear to understand or, even if they do, appear to care much at the prospect of losing the great strength that we currently still have in global financial markets. Spoon fed on an uneven and incorrect view that it is banks and financial markets alone that are responsible for the vast round of failure rather than also including failure of governments over the years to ensure that regulatory systems were operated soundly and by those best placed to ensure that bubbles could be avoided it seems to me that the UK electorate has absolutely no idea that over regulation or taking any part of it away from direct national control may well seriously damage not only UK economic recovery but could actually lead to years of further economic decline.

Such negative views will no doubt haunt those that work in the City of London and the other great confines in which UK based financial markets are centred. Soon it really will be too late to turn the clock back and once buried in the EU pit you can bet that as taxpayers it will also cost all of us a lot more money to operate than a soundly based national system. Of course, the plan is that UK regulatory regimes are retained and whilst this must be right it is torrid to even think about the massive additional burden of bureaurocracy and cost that will be added by Europe wide regulation. Such concerns really should haunt senior politicians of both main political parties – Labour and Tory alike as it is they that in future may have the blood on their hands if as I suspect that two or three years from now many thousands of British based financial market jobs are swept away.

Why is it then that hapless political leaders of both main UK parties are seemingly happy to acquiesce to the handing over of virtually all financial market regulation to the European Union? In the case of Labour it is surely a simple late play for votes ahead of the 2010 general election on the assumption that the plight of the party having already sunk to such lows that there may only be a very few more votes to be lost. It may also be slightly long term thinking on the basis that if the Tories do win next year the damage that a move such as this could do if financial companies abort the UK could well mean that six years from now the country could be in an even deeper mess. Chancellor Darling can, as he has attempted to do today in an article placed in The Times, play at being the good boy warning M. Sarkozy against meddling with the City of London. But it is already far too late for that thanks to Prime Minister Brown and in any case, we well know that Mr. Darling speaks with forked tongue! For instance, on one hand Darling says that Europe is not competing against itself but moreover, striving for global excellence. Even so, the bottom line is surely that countries such as France and Germany are simply looking to steal massive UK financial market competitive advantage for themselves. Darling also says that the FSA must be responsible for supervising individual companies in Britain and yet at the same time he says that the EU needs a single rulebook for financial regulation covering banks, insurance and securities plus a mechanism for national regulatory supervisors to co-operate in its implementation. Frankly as all markets are different that argument doesn’t stack up. Darling says also that tougher regulation is in everyone’s interests. Maybe so but there is an equal case to ensure that what is needed is strengthened regulation as opposed to far more of it and in any event ensuring that we don’t end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater turning it into overregulation. Sure, I agree that changes are needed to regulation and that it does need to be strengthened. But what I will not accept is that if we (the UK) are to survive and compete in what is and always will be a global market and one in which we happen to still command considerable respect that we should veer that far away from the Anglo-American model. Mr. Darling and his equally discredited boss at Number Ten should remember the old adage - when in a hole stop digging! Appalled as I am, as to reasons why in the blue Tory corner in which we find Messrs Cameron and Osborne doing little more than cowering what to do whilst somehow playing into the hands of the more formal government view that British interests really are best served handing over control of financial market regulation to the EU I am quite frankly lost for words!

Perhaps the best way to treat both Sarkozy and Darling remarks today together with how best to approach the appointment of M. Barnier as EU Internal Market Commissioner would be to see them as the epitaph for yet another once great British success story. As we speak, it is not too late to pull back and for government and indeed, Tory opposition to come out fighting for Britain. Neither will do that though despite a handful of Euro-sceptics that have for months been attempting to expose the real writing on the wall. We may well ask also why it is that those who this European regulatory stampede will eventually affect say all too little. Are they weak willed –are they walking around with their eyes shut imagining for one moment that all will be well and that US and Asian markets alongside the French and Germans won’t be champing at the bit to take advantage? Many of course are in no position to stand up and be counted right now due to the failure of various governments to ensure adequate regulation or that the policing of it was in the right hands. So be it and all I can say to them is get ready to start looking over your shoulder!

On 4 December, the Competitiveness Council discussed, and generally supported the Commission’s 2008 proposal for a directive on consumer rights.

The Commission wants to harmonise consumer rights as regards information about the goods, rights in the event of late delivery or non-delivery, cooling-off periods, returns, refunds, repair terms and guarantees. Consequently, member states would be prohibited from keeping or introducing provisions in their national law which differ from the proposed Directive, whether those provisions provide for more or less stringent consumer protection requirements. Whereas some member states, including the UK are concerned about the full harmonization consequences others favour full harmonization. If the current proposal is adopted the UK would have to amend any existing legislation which exceeds or provides less protection than the level of consumer protection provided by the directive. In fact, some of the UK existing consumer protection measures go beyond the proposed directive terms, therefore it would have to lower consumer’s protection.

Moreover, several member states have raised concerns over the proposed rules on delivery and faulty goods. The Commission has proposed the same standard set of remedies available to all consumers who have bought a faulty product. Under the draft directive where goods do not conform, repair and replacement is the first option and the consumer would only be entitled to a refund in restricted circumstances. Hence, the trader may provide a remedy by repairing or replacing the product. Under certain circumstances such as if the trader refuses to remedy the lack of conformity or fails to do so in a reasonable time, the consumer would be entitled to have a reduction of the price or rescind the contract and claim damages. Consequently, the UK would be required to repeal consumers’ existing right, in national law, to reject faulty goods. Hence, consumers in the UK would no longer have a legal right to reject goods of unsatisfactory quality and being reimbursed.

Member States broadly support the proposal wider definitions of distance contracts and off premises contracts as well as right of withdrawal. The majority of the member states are willing to endorse common rules on the right of withdrawal as well as a 14 day right of withdrawal for consumers both for distance and off premises contracts. The House of Lords European Union Committee is concerned that the right of withdrawal might affect the UK 45-day cooling-off period for warranties.

Moreover, the majority of the member states believe that immovable property and financial services should not be covered by the directive.

Whilst consumer organizations are concerned that the proposal might undermine national consumer rights businesses organizations are worried about administrative burdens.

It remains to be seen what will come out from the negotiations. According to Malcolm Harbour, chairman of the European Parliament's consumer affairs committee, the European parliament "will not accept any move that undermines" consumer rights. Moreover, he said "By the time this directive has left parliament, I do not believe it will pose a threat to our right to a refund." Nevertheless, QMV is required at the Council and the Government might not be able to build a blocking minority in order to prevent a reduction in consumer protection for UK consumers.

Yesterday evening, in the debate on the European financial services proposals, Bill Cash MP spoke out against the regulations, as he rejected proposals for establishing a European Systemic Risk Board, a European Banking Authority, a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, a European Securities and Markets Authority, with all their respective powers, and the regulation on Community macro-prudential oversight of the financial system, and furthermore, rejected the Government’s approach “to setting up a new financial supervisory structure in the EU.”

Cash said: “The United Kingdom will no longer be able to insist upon retaining its own control over financial services and banking in the City of London and across the country. The Westminster Parliament will be obliged to accept the legislation which includes the overarching legal architecture and final jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The French, the Germans and President Barroso have achieved their objectives while Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have sold the United Kingdom down the river.”

During the debate, Bill Cash made the following interventions:

Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): As I am a member of the ESC, I am sure the Minister will understand my wishing to draw attention to the fact that in our most recent report we have, effectively, condemned the idea that we should rush forward with these proposals. There are many good reasons for that, which are set out in our report. Furthermore, does the Minister accept the following point, which I have repeatedly made to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer-this is, effectively, a sell-out to the process of majority voting, and it will do immense damage to the City of London, which accounts for an enormous percentage of our GDP? Does she also agree that there is no justification for the speed with which this is being done, or for handing over the whole of this ramshackle structure to the European Court of Justice?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him on this and that I think it is important that we have a European harmonisation of regulation. That was agreed at not only the European level, but the global level. I think we would all agree that we are looking for a harmonisation of regulation at a global level, and the EU process can move forward on that.

…

Mr. Cash: The Minister speaks about red lines. Will she exercise a veto when the whole matter is going to be decided by a majority vote?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: This is a package of five legislative proposals. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that four of them are down to qualified majority voting, but one of the items in the package is subject to unanimity. We are going into the negotiations with our red lines and I am sure that the Chancellor will stick to them. Within the negotiations, I am sure that we will get not only what is good for the UK, but what is good for the EU.

…

Mr. Cash: Does the Minister note that one of the questions that we put was whether, in the context of the architecture to which I referred earlier, the Government are satisfied not only with regard to the voting issue, but with regard to the relationship of the European Court of Justice to these bodies? That is crucial, because it is at that point that the question of the exercise of real power is determined. Can the Minister answer that question, please?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman back to my previous answer, which was that we have concerns about the legislative proposals, where the Commission appears to be taking over the role of the courts, because the judgment as to whether member states are following European law must be a matter for the European courts. We are putting in place a new framework to improve the quality and consistency of supervision and regulation. Such a framework will better protect consumers, help prevent financial crisis and improve efficiency for firms. I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. Members in the debate. 4.49 pm

…

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend knows that I have the gravest concerns about all this. Does he appreciate that although the trade associations-I mentioned the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Investment Management Association -have effectively endorsed the idea of this supranational authority, there is also a political dimension, because whereas they may have a multinational view about these matters in the global context, in terms of the City of London a political judgment has to be struck? That is why I personally take the view that we ought to resist this all the way down the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, people in the trade associations take a globalised view based on multinationalism, whereas when one deals with people in individual firms on the ground, one finds that they frequently take a very different view. Does my hon. Friend have any comment to make on that?

Mr. Hoban: My experience in this role over the past four years is that there is a wide divergence of views in the City about the role that Europe should play in the regulation of financial services. Several trade associations take the view that there should be a harmonised rule book, for example, but they are also concerned about the pace at which the reforms are progressing and whether a proper process is in place. We have seen that in the way in which the alternative investment fund managers directive has been dealt with. The devil is always in the detail. We need proper scrutiny of these proposals, and people need carefully to think through their impact. The problem is that when others seek to use their political agenda to shape regulation in Europe, it is sometimes to the detriment of our own sector based here in London.

 …

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point relating to competing sovereignties. The European Court asserts its primacy over not only our laws but our constitution. I am glad to say that the leader of our party has affirmed that there will be a sovereignty Bill to deal with some of those questions. Does my hon. Friend agree that where there are such competing sovereignties, and it is in our national interests to do so, as it is in the case before us, it is essential that, if we come to power, we justify and carry through the leader of our party's commitment to the repatriation of legislation to ensure our economic competitiveness, using our sovereignty Bill?

Mr. Hoban: I suspect that my hon. Friend is pushing me to go further than I am inclined to go at this point, but I want to explore the legal argument, because there is an issue to do with the basis of the powers. I know that he is an expert on the subject, so he may want to contribute to the debate on that point later….

…

Mr. Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but the danger is that, because of mission creep, there will be increasing control-the practitioners instinctively feel that that is coming. Those who are promoting this whole superstructure, including the Government and Lord Myners himself, would hand over the City of London, lock, stock and barrel to a supervisory authority that will insist that it has its way. That is the problem and it is completely contrary to proper market conditions. That is where the problem lies for the City, and it will end up in competition with New York instead of working across the Atlantic as we should do.

Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point about mission creep when it comes to these authorities, and he has been very critical of trade associations so far. However, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe has identified that as a potential issue. It is concerned that ESAs will go beyond technical issues and stray into policy. …

…

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally crass for the Government to hand over the running of financial services to the EU, and then to saddle themselves with the responsibility for bailing people out when things go wrong? How stupid can you get?

Mr. Browne: I am not aware that anyone in this debate has proposed that course of action-

Mr. Cash: It is what this is all about.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that is what this motion is all about, but the nub of the debate is whether that is the case. I shall deal with that in a moment, but we all acknowledge that these enormous financial institutions have tentacles that reach into many different markets. That is why it is appropriate for us to ask ourselves whether the regulatory regime that monitors them should have a similar scope, and a dimension to its activities that reflects the scale and nature of the organisations being regulated. Because we have the most advanced financial services sector in Europe and are the dominant players in the market, the proposals before us today could have some benefits for the UK. A market whose general regulation applies the same rules to all European countries could present opportunities for us to achieve greater profitability and wider expansion, as long as there is no improper restriction of our financial services sector. That is important, because regulation must not restrict legitimate competition….

…

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman betrays a remarkable lack of knowledge about the extent to which the French in particular and the Germans, who are also going for the European bank, have set their hearts, minds and political will on doing as much as possible to ensure that the City of London does not survive as the main centre in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is completely and totally off the wall.

Mr. Browne: I do not know if I am grateful for that intervention. When I spoke about paranoia about the European Union, I did not necessarily have the hon. Gentleman in mind, although he may have identified with that feeling. There are many good reasons why London should be the financial services capital of Europe, as it offers entrepreneurial dynamism and labour market flexibility, and the fact that we speak English helps….

…

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Commission, being the ultimate bureaucratic executive and the responsible body-these regulations are about regulatory arrangements and are the highest of legal instruments that must be implemented by member states-is acting in a manner that will inevitably lead to a non-competitive environment, because the Commission itself is basically undemocratic? It is bureaucratic, and all the fears that my hon. Friend has expressed will come about because of the failure of the culture within the European Union to understand that that is the basis on which the Commission operates, and it should not be allowed to do so. The Government are seriously in error and should be condemned for allowing such a situation to come about.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend makes his point, again, extremely powerfully….

…

The House having divided: Ayes 256, Noes 188.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091201/debtext/91201-0012.htm

To recall, The Hague Programme provided for the Common European Asylum System to be established in 2010 and called for the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons in need of international protection valid throughout the EU. In the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted in October 2008, the EU leaders asked the Commission to put forward concrete proposals for establishing a single asylum procedure comprising common guarantees and for adopting a uniform status for refugees and the beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

Last December, the Commission presented the first proposals of the second phase of the asylum legislation: proposals amending the Directive on reception conditions for asylum-seekers, the Dublin Regulation and the Eurodac Regulation. The Commission also proposed the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office and a joint EU resettlement scheme.

On 21 October, the European Commission has taken another legislative step towards a single asylum system for the whole EU as it adopted proposals to amend the Directive on qualification and status of persons in need of international protection and the Directive on asylum procedures. The UK may ‘opt out’ from measures establishing a Common European Asylum System. The Government has recently decided to opt out from the revision of the EU Directive on Reception Conditions for Asylum Seekers but it was the first time that it has decided to opt out from an asylum measure. The development of a common European asylum system will have a significant impact on the UK’s future asylum policy. While commenting the Commission’s proposals, Timothy Kirkhope MEP has said that "Britain stands to lose a central pillar of its sovereignty: the ability to decide who can and cannot enter the UK.”

Presently, Member States still have some flexibility to establish their own rules. However, the Commission has pointed out that Member States have different decision-making practices and provide different levels of rights. Consequently, it has put forward a proposal for a recast of the 2004 Qualification Directive which will further harmonise protection standards for the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection. According to the Commission the proposal aims to simplify decision-making procedures in order to enable national authorities “to apply the criteria more robustly and to identify more quickly persons in need of protection and those who are not.”

The proposal would eliminate the differences on the rights granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Hence, there would be no longer different conditions and procedures for issuing residence permits and travel documents, for granting access to employment, social welfare, healthcare and benefits for family members as well as to integration programmes. The draft Directive removes the Member States discretion to decide whether to grant those rights to people with subsidiary protection. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Meg Hillier, has explained to the European Scrutiny Committee that the UK already provides for a single procedure for refugees and people with subsidiary protection, therefore, in this regard, no changes would be required in the UK.

Member States are required, under the existing directive, to ensure family unity and to provide family members with the same benefits as the person granted protection. However, the draft proposal broadens the definition of “family members” and provides more categories. The Government is particularly concerned about such extension as it believes that the risk of “using an alleged family connection as a cloak for trafficking in human beings” would be greater.

The Qualifications Directive would also be amended in order to require Member States to ensure equal treatment between beneficiaries of international protection and nationals as regards recognition procedures for foreign diplomas and certificates as well as to ensure that they have access to appropriate schemes for the assessment and validation of their learning. Member States would be also obliged to offer beneficiaries of international protection access to training courses and employment offices’ counselling services. Moreover, member states would be required to ensure access to accommodation to beneficiaries of international protection under the same conditions as nationals.

Presently, Member States are allowed to reduce employment and social benefits granted to a refugee or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection if their status “(…) has been obtained on the basis of activities engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for being recognised as a refugee.” However, this is scrapped from the draft directive.

The Commission also presented a proposal for a directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection which is a recasting of the 2005 Directive. The Commission has pointed out that Member States have different procedural arrangements enjoying therefore “a wide margin of discretion.” Thus, it presented this proposal whereby Member States would no longer be allowed to have their own procedural arrangements. Meg Hillier has said to the European Scrutiny Committee that the Government is concerned that the proposal would “impede Member States’ ability to tackle abuses of the asylum system.”

The Commission has proposed to widen the scope of the Directive which would also apply to applications for international protection made in the territorial waters of the Member States. This would be a major concern for the UK taking into account its territorial waters and Gibraltar.

Under the draft proposal Member States would be required to provide for training programmes for staff examining and taking decisions on applications for international protection. Moreover, Member States would be obliged to guarantee access to organisations providing legal advice and counselling to applicants of international protection at the border crossing points and detention facilities.

The draft directive introduces new requirements that Member States’ competent authorities have to respect while conducting a personal interview for an application for international protection. They would not be allowed to wear a uniform and a transcript must be made of every personal interview.

The Commission has also proposed a six months limit for completing procedures at first instance. Consequently, Member States will have to adapt their national procedures with the proposed time limits as they will be required to process applications for international protection within six months.

Furthermore, the possibility to omit a personal interview in accelerated procedures is scraped from the draft directive. In fact, the draft proposal provides for a limited and exhaustive list of grounds under which member states may accelerate the examination of an application of international protection. According to the Government the Commission’s proposal would seriously restrict the UK use of the accelerated procedure for the examination of applications and would jeopardize the UK’s “detained fast track” scheme. Moreover, the draft directive expressly states that Member States must ensure that applicants for international protection have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against first instance decisions. It also provides for automatic suspensive effect of appeals against these decisions. Hence, the UK would be prevented of using non-suspensive appeals in cases of manifestly unfounded asylum claims.

The proposals are subject to co-decision and qualified majority voting in the Council. The Government has opted into the 2005 Procedures Directive and the 2004 Qualification Directive. It remains to be seen whether it will opt into the draft directives. On 30 November, the Justice and Home Affairs Council held its first discussion on the Commission’s proposals. According to the Council conclusions there are “a number of issues which will need to be addressed in the coming negotiations within the Council and with the European Parliament.”

The EU leaders have been discussing the potential candidates for the posts of permanent President of the European Council and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in the last few months. Although there were no formal discussions on the new top positions at the EU summit in October, the EU leaders discussed them in the corridors. In fact, they have reached an informal agreement that the EU president post should go to a politician from the centre-right whereas the post of EU Foreign Minister should go to someone from the centre-left. Moreover, Sarkozy and Merkel have agreed to support the same candidate for the EU president post.

Unsurprisingly, in an undemocratic and unaccountable EU, the member states’ citizens have no say in the matter. Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU president as well as the High Representative is appointed by the European Council by qualified majority voting. The EU leaders have been saying that the Lisbon Treaty brings more democracy and Europe close to the citizens but the all process just shows the opposite. There was no public consultation. Citizens or even national parliaments were left out of the discussion.

The EU leaders were in a hurry to appoint the two EU top positions as the treaty enters into force on 1 December they wanted the posts that it creates filled by that date. Moreover, the European Commission has been operating in “caretaker mode” since 1 November and the negotiations over the allocation of the Commission’s portfolios are directly related to the appointment of the EU new posts. José Manuel Barroso could not announce his new team until the appointment of the High Representative for Foreign and Security policy who will also be a Commission vice president. Hence, to accelerate the process, the Swedish Presidency has convened an extraordinary informal summit to appoint the permanent president of the European Council, the High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy and a Secretary-General of the Council Secretariat.

In the run-up to the extraordinary EU summit, Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, has intensified his phone consultations with the EU leaders. The negotiations were done in total secrecy. The final deal was reached at the EU leaders' behind closed doors dinner on 19 November. They unanimously agreed to appoint the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy as President of the European Council, Catherine Ashton, Trade Commissioner, as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Pierre de Boissieu as the Secretary-General of the Council. The Swedish EU Presidency obtained unanimous consensus without a vote.

Fredrik Reinfeldt said "This is the new leadership team of Europe" they will be “the voice and face of Europe throughout the world." In fact, they will represent 500 million citizens but they are hardly known. They have no democratic legitimacy. The appointment of the EU President and the EU foreign affairs minister is the product of compromises between the Member States. The horse trading for the EU new positions has taken into account the nationality, geography, the size of the country, political affiliation, gender, everything but merit.

As above mentioned, it was decided that the first full-time president of the European Council should come from a small country and from the centre-right. Hence, the appointment of Van Rompuy was not a surprise, specially taking into account he had the backing of Merkel and Sarkozy. On the other hand, Ms Catherine Ashton´s appointment was, definitely, a surprise. In the last few weeks we heard the names of David Miliband, Massimo D'Alema, Adrian Severin but no one could imagine that Catherine Ashton was a candidate. Her name came up completely out of the blue.

Although it was obvious that Tony Blair had no support, Gordon Brown took too long to drop Tony Blair’s candidature for President of the European Council and he has not done his homework for a plan b. In a last minute deal, Gordon Brown accepts the offer and decides that Britain should go for the post of High Representative. The EU leaders from the centre left decided at a meeting few hours before the summit to support Catherine Ashton for the post of high representative. However, she was the last in Gordon Bronw´s list but there was not enough support for Lord Mandelson or Geoff Hoon. In the end of the day, Gordon Brown has had limited influence in the choice of the two top positions. Moreover, Gordon Brown by accepting the post of High representative for Ms Ashton, who will also be a Vice president of the Commission, has taken the UK out of the race for the heavyweight economic portfolios in the next European Commission.

It was reported in several newspapers that Sarkozy has supported the appointment of Ms Ashton in exchange of France getting the internal market and financial services portfolio. William Hague has demanded an explanation from the Government on what has been agreed at the EU summit but no concrete answer was given. At a House of Commons Debate, on 23 November, William Hague said “We wish Lady Ashton well in her appointment, but it would be a very serious matter if the price of adopting the Government's third choice as High Representative meant that policy on the internal market and on financial services, in particular, was taken in a direction that was not in keeping with the interests of Britain.” David Miliband denied the accusations and said that the European Commission’s portfolios are a responsibility of the President of the Commission.

Yes, José Manuel Barroso is in charge of assigning the Commission’s portfolios among the Member States’ nominees and he held intense negotiations with the EU leaders. Obviously, member states were seeking the most prestigious portfolios such as internal market, competition, trade, and economic and monetary affairs. One could say that the European Commissioner more important portfolios were also part of the EU summit horse trading.

On 27 November, José Manuel Barroso presented the new Commission announcing the portfolios of each nominee. He said "I am confident I have assigned the right jobs to the right people, (…) we have achieved a good mix of skills, experience and gender.” Moreover, he said "In such a process there is always going to be dialogue, requests and suggestions. I spoke to many of the commissioners designate and prime ministers but the decision is mine, I take full responsibility for the decision." However, José Manuel Barroso has not resisted pressure from member states who try to influence his decision.

Sarkozy pressure has been successful, and unsurprisingly the internal market portfolio including financial services went for his candidate Michel Barnier. In fact, according to Le Monde, Sarkozy said "The agreement on the role of Michel Barnier was sealed between Barroso and I three days ago. It's exceptional for France.” Moreover, he said "It's not that the Brits were hesitant, they were frankly against [Barnier's appointment].” However, Baroso has not even considered the UK’s request of separating financial services from the internal market portfolio. The UK campaign to stop this happening was obviously too late. France was therefore the bigger winner as it got one of most important posts as the European Commission has been particularly active in its response to the financial crisis.

According to Le Monde Sarkozy also said "It's the first time in 50 years that France has had this role. The English are the big losers in this business (…).” France is well known for its protectionist tendencies and will be in charge of the internal market and financial services. No one could think of a worse deal for the UK, specially taking into account the current negotiations for the reform of the European supervisory financial system and the draft directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers. The UK is already struggling to get these proposals substantially amended in order to protect the City of London interests. France in the aftermath of the financial crisis has made stricter regulation of the financial market a priority. France has been therefore calling for tough financial regulation and stronger financial supervision. Michel Barnier as the new internal market commissioner will be in charge of proposing future EU legislation in the financial sector. If there is something we can expect is further financial regulations against the interests of the City of London. According to The Times a senior City source said: “This is a disaster. They have appointed an incredibly prescriptive French politician who is hardline protectionist. He doesn’t care about Britain. This is a job which is critical for Britain, for the City, and it goes to the French.” Barroso in order to shut up the UK´s voices of concern over such nomination appointed Jonathan Faull, a senior UK civil servant, presently the director-general for justice, freedom and security, as the director-general for the internal market.

Mr Barroso has not only tried to please the member states but also the re-nominated commissioners and the European Parliament. The new Commission will have 12 members coming from the European People's Party (EPP), 6 from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and 9 from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). Taking into account that none of the top positions went to the liberals and that ALDE support Barroso’s second term, they were therefore compensated with the Commission’s portfolios, they got the Economic and Monetary Affairs portfolio. Olli Rehn, from Finland, is the new commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs. The ALDE leader, Mr Verhofstadt has said “From the beginning, we were working on the top jobs in the Commission.What counts is not so much the people there but what were the portfolios […] and could these portfolios help us in our fight to have a more pro-European agenda.”

Moreover, Barroso has also favoured his present colleagues as all but one of the posts of vice-presidents had been given to returning commissioners. The new Commission will have 7 Vice-Presidents, including Baroness Catherine Ashton, Viviane Reding, Joaquín Almunia, Siim Kallas, Neelie Kroes, Antonio Tajani and Maros Sefcovic.

Although Joaquin Almunia was not kept in his post as the Spanish government wanted he was given the competition portfolio. Neelie Kroes, from Netherlands, is now in charge of the Digital Agenda. Belgium has got the post of President of the European Council, nevertheless, Karel de Gucht, currently in charge of development and humanitarian aid will be the new trade commissioner. Guenther Oettinger, from Germany, will be the new Energy commissioner. He will have an instrumental role on the development of a common EU energy policy.

Barroso created a new portfolio, climate action which has been given to the Danish Connie Hedegaard, and Janez Potocnik, from Slovenia, will be the new Environment commissioner. He also has split the justice and home affairs portfolio into justice and fundamental rights on the one hand and home affairs on the other. According to the EuropeanVoice, he said “Most governments, if not all governments in Europe, have a minister for justice and a minister for interior or security and internal affairs, so that's one of the reasons I decided to have instead of one commissioner in charge of all these matters to separate [them] in the new Commission.” Hence, Viviane Reding, from Luxembourg, will become the commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship. The communications portfolio has been scraped but Vivien Reading will be in charge of the DG Communications. Cecilia Malmström, from Sweden, will be in charge of home affairs.

Romania has lobbied for the agriculture portfolio and it got it. In fact, this was another France’s victory, Sarkozy has said “(…) And the second victory is that our friends the Romanians have agriculture.” Dacian Ciolos will be the new agriculture and rural development commissioner. One could wonder if he will be seriously committed in reforming CAP.

Maria Damanaki, from Greece, will be the new commissioner for maritime affairs and fisheries. Poland got what it wanted, Janusz Lewandowski will be the commissioner for budget/financial programming.

Barroso has also split the development and humanitarian aid portfolio into two, hence Andris Piebalgs, from Latvia, and former energy commissioner, will be the development commissioner and Rumiana Jeleva, from Bulgaria, will be in charge of international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response. Stefan Füle, from Czech Republic, is in charge of enlargement and European neighbourhood policy. It remains to be seen how they will work with Ms Ashton, as they are supposed to work in close cooperation with the High Representative/Vice-President.

Maros Sefcovic, from Slovakia, is the new commissioner for inter-institutional relations and administration. Antonio Tajani, from Italy, will be in charge of industry and entrepreneurship whereas Siim Kallas, from Estonia, got the transport portfolio. László Andor, from Hungary, is the new commissioner for employment, social affairs and inclusion. Algirdas Šemeta, from Lithuania, is the new commissioner for taxation and customs union, audit and anti-fraud. John Dalli, from Malta, is in charge of health and consumer policy, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, from Ireland, is the new commissioner for research and innovation, and Johannes Hahn, from Austria, is in charge of regional policy. Androulla Vassiliou, from Cyprus, got the education, culture, multilingualism and youth portfolio.

Although France has not pursued one of the Lisbon Treaty’s posts no one can said that it left the summit with empty hands. It is important to recall that the EU leaders also appointed the present deputy secretary-general of the council, the French Pierre de Boissieu for the post of secretary-general of the EU Council of Ministers, until his retirement in June 2011. He won’t have a marginal role, in fact it is a quite powerful position. Pierre de Boissieu has been described as a “Brussels legend” and a “key player in European integration.” As Secretary-General he will assist the Council and “shall be closely and continually involved in organising, coordinating and ensuring the coherence of the Council's work and implementation of its 18-month programme.”

Sarkozy got exactly what he wanted whereas Gordon Brown got his third choice for a post that he was not particularly interested in getting.

The hearings in the European Parliament’s committees for the Commissioners-designate will take place during the week of 11 to 14 January and on 18 and 19 January. The plenary’s vote on the entire Commission is planned for 26 January. Then, the Commission will be formally appointed by the European Council. Consequently, the new Commission would not take up its duties until February 2010. Theoretically, the European Parliament can only confirm or reject the entire Commission. But it may reject a commissioner nominated by the Member States by threatening to reject the college as a whole. In 2004, Rocco Buttiglione and Ingrida Udre had to be replaced and László Kovács had to be assigned a different portfolio. Hence, if there are problems with any of the candidates, the plenary vote would be postponed and the candidates would have to be replaced. But Barroso has said “I talked to all the commissioners and asked them all whether there was anything in their political or economic background that could present a problem. And after having discussed the past with them, I am sure that is not the case.” Nevertheless, some MEPs already raised concerns over the communist pass of the Hungarian nominee, Laszlo Andor and the Czech Republic's nominee, Stefan Fuele.