What does the EU and the daft Eurovision have in common?
Ah, the Eurovision Song Contest! It's ridiculous, costs us dear and is beset by anti-British vote-rigging. Now, what does that remind me of?
23rd May 2008
Daily Mail
The EU: It's ridiculous, costs us dear and is beset by anti-British vote-rigging.
The Eurovision Song Contest: It's ridiculous, costs us dear and is beset by anti-British vote-rigging.
You know you're middle-aged when the Eurovision Song Contest seems to come round more quickly every year. It feels like only last week when we were all cringing on the sofa in shame for our country over Scooch's high-camp UK entry, Flying The Flag, ('would you like something to suck on for landing, sir?').
But here we go again. Tomorrow night, BBC1 devotes three-and-a-quarter excruciating hours to this wildly expensive festival of the third-rate, the incompetent and the corrupt.
Before even the first note has been squawked, we all have a shrewd idea of how the voting will go. The Scandinavians will cosy up to each other, the Balkan states will scratch each other's backs, the old Warsaw Pact countries will stick together. . . and with Ireland already out of the contest, no national jury will show any special favours to the UK's Andy Abraham.
Sir Terry: less than serious when it comes to Eurovision
His entry, Even If, may be a great deal better than Scooch's effort, but barring a miracle, he'll be left stranded at the bottom of the scoreboard like so many UK entrants before him.
As the great Sir Terry Wogan sighed during last year's utterly predictable display of nationalist favouritism and prejudice: 'This is ridiculous.'
I know, I know, I needn't watch - though like all British licence-fee, I'll have to foot the bill for this ritual humiliation of my country, like it or not.
Indeed, in its thoroughly British way, the BBC goes on paying far more than its fair share of Eurovision's costs, getting nothing in return but a guaranteed thrashing.
Miracle
But I have a horrible feeling that I'll be switching on all the same. This is partly because I'm a creature of habit and I've watched it almost every year since my earliest childhood.
I even remember a time - and how my sons will mock me for this - when I used to look forward to it, marvelling at how a technological miracle made it possible to broadcast a programme throughout Europe and even quite enjoying some of the songs.
In those days, of course, there was always a chance that the UK might do well, which added a bit of excitement and spice.
Today, however, the show's attraction is of an altogether darker kind. First, there's the awful fascination of watching and listening to embarrassing performers sing truly dreadful songs seriously badly - though perhaps we have quite enough of that sort of thing these days, with shows like The X Factor and Britain's Got Talent.
Andy Abraham represents the UK in this year's Eurovision Song Contest
Then there are Sir Terry's wry little comments about the tackiness of it all, which has got him into hot water with other European broadcasters, who take the whole thing rather more seriously.
Again, however, the novelty of hearing him pouring scorn on the programme he's presenting is beginning to wear off after all these years. But if there's one reason why the BBC should go on broadcasting Eurovision, year after year, that reason must surely be the voting, with its annual reminder of where nation states' loyalties truly lie.
Indeed, doesn't the song contest - hugely expensive, incompetently run and rigged against a Britain that pays far more than its share - remind you forcibly of another institution that's supposed to celebrate the brotherhood of European nations, but actually sets us at each other's throats? There are no prizes for guessing which one I mean.
The big difference between Eurovision and the European Union, of course, is that where the EU is concerned, we're not merely paying the odd million for the privilege of being punched on the nose. We're paying billions every year.
We were reminded of that this week, when Brussels unveiled its long-promised review of the scandalous Common Agricultural Policy, in return for which Tony Blair quietly gave up £1 billion of Britain's annual rebate from the EU in 2005.
And what did we get for that £1 billion? True, the review suggests minor changes to the CAP, including a proposal to scrap the set-aside scheme, under which farmers are paid for leaving their land uncultivated.
But the changes won't save a single euro. The CAP will continue to gobble up more than 40 per cent of the EU's budget, even though agriculture employs only five per cent of the population. Meanwhile, the money will still be spent in the same way, lavishing subsidies on INEFFICIENT farmers in countries such as France, Italy and Greece.
As for EFFICIENT British farmers, producing MORE food per acre from their larger farms, the plan is that their subsidies will be cut. Brilliant, isn't it?
At a time of world food shortages, who but the EU would press ahead with a hugely expensive scheme for rewarding the inefficient and punishing the efficient?
The worst of it is, at this time when food prices are soaring everywhere, that EU shoppers will go on having to pay some 20 per cent more than the world price for their weekly groceries.
So we're paying billions for the privilege of belonging to a scheme whose main effect is to make our food more expensive.
Why? Because European Commissioners (unless they happen to be British) adopt exactly the same policy as the voters in the Eurovision song contest: to hell with the European ideal or the quality of the song - just vote for your national interests.
Isn't it time somebody stood up for ours? There was a brief moment, of course, when it looked as if you and I were at last to be given the chance to tell the EU what we thought of it so far. That was when Tony Blair was cornered into promising a referendum on the European Constitution in Labour's 2005 election manifesto.
But to their shame, first he and then Gordon Brown ratted on that unequivocal pledge, pretending in outrageous defiance of the facts that the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were different documents.
Indeed, Mr Brown's refusal to keep that promise strikes me as a far blacker mark on his record than the debacle over the 10p tax band.
Corrupt
Gordon Brown
The tax changes in his 2007 Budget were an ill-considered blunder. His refusal to call a referendum was an affront to democracy, based on a bare-faced lie.
I have a great deal of sympathy, therefore, with Tory donor Stuart Wheeler and his application to the courts for an order compelling Mr Brown to keep his manifesto promise.
That sympathy grew even stronger this week when Commons Speaker Michael Martin announced he will launch a legal counter-challenge, arguing that Mr Wheeler's attempt to force a referendum amounted to an effort to override the will of Parliament.
Yes, Mr Martin has a point. If politicians were forced by law to keep all their election pledges, this country would be all but ungovernable. And surely it's for MPs - and not for a judge - to say whether we should have a referendum or not. At least we can get rid of the blighters when they break their promises.
But hasn't Mr Martin noticed that Parliament is regularly overruled by judges enforcing European laws? How ironic that he should seek to attack Mr Wheeler on this of all issues, when a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would offer our best hope of returning powers to the Parliament that Mr Martin says he's defending.
As we saw with the CAP this week, the EU is not going to change its corrupt and costly ways of its own accord, any more than the Balkan states are going to stop voting for each other in the Eurovision song contest.
It'll have to be forced to change. And what better way than giving us that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
To borrow a phrase from Terry Wogan: 'This is ridiculous.' Give us our chance to say so.
dailymailco.uk
Ah, the Eurovision Song Contest! It's ridiculous, costs us dear and is beset by anti-British vote-rigging. Now, what does that remind me of?
23rd May 2008
Daily Mail
The EU: It's ridiculous, costs us dear and is beset by anti-British vote-rigging.
The Eurovision Song Contest: It's ridiculous, costs us dear and is beset by anti-British vote-rigging.
You know you're middle-aged when the Eurovision Song Contest seems to come round more quickly every year. It feels like only last week when we were all cringing on the sofa in shame for our country over Scooch's high-camp UK entry, Flying The Flag, ('would you like something to suck on for landing, sir?').
But here we go again. Tomorrow night, BBC1 devotes three-and-a-quarter excruciating hours to this wildly expensive festival of the third-rate, the incompetent and the corrupt.
Before even the first note has been squawked, we all have a shrewd idea of how the voting will go. The Scandinavians will cosy up to each other, the Balkan states will scratch each other's backs, the old Warsaw Pact countries will stick together. . . and with Ireland already out of the contest, no national jury will show any special favours to the UK's Andy Abraham.
Sir Terry: less than serious when it comes to Eurovision
His entry, Even If, may be a great deal better than Scooch's effort, but barring a miracle, he'll be left stranded at the bottom of the scoreboard like so many UK entrants before him.
As the great Sir Terry Wogan sighed during last year's utterly predictable display of nationalist favouritism and prejudice: 'This is ridiculous.'
I know, I know, I needn't watch - though like all British licence-fee, I'll have to foot the bill for this ritual humiliation of my country, like it or not.
Indeed, in its thoroughly British way, the BBC goes on paying far more than its fair share of Eurovision's costs, getting nothing in return but a guaranteed thrashing.
Miracle
But I have a horrible feeling that I'll be switching on all the same. This is partly because I'm a creature of habit and I've watched it almost every year since my earliest childhood.
I even remember a time - and how my sons will mock me for this - when I used to look forward to it, marvelling at how a technological miracle made it possible to broadcast a programme throughout Europe and even quite enjoying some of the songs.
In those days, of course, there was always a chance that the UK might do well, which added a bit of excitement and spice.
Today, however, the show's attraction is of an altogether darker kind. First, there's the awful fascination of watching and listening to embarrassing performers sing truly dreadful songs seriously badly - though perhaps we have quite enough of that sort of thing these days, with shows like The X Factor and Britain's Got Talent.
Andy Abraham represents the UK in this year's Eurovision Song Contest
Then there are Sir Terry's wry little comments about the tackiness of it all, which has got him into hot water with other European broadcasters, who take the whole thing rather more seriously.
Again, however, the novelty of hearing him pouring scorn on the programme he's presenting is beginning to wear off after all these years. But if there's one reason why the BBC should go on broadcasting Eurovision, year after year, that reason must surely be the voting, with its annual reminder of where nation states' loyalties truly lie.
Indeed, doesn't the song contest - hugely expensive, incompetently run and rigged against a Britain that pays far more than its share - remind you forcibly of another institution that's supposed to celebrate the brotherhood of European nations, but actually sets us at each other's throats? There are no prizes for guessing which one I mean.
The big difference between Eurovision and the European Union, of course, is that where the EU is concerned, we're not merely paying the odd million for the privilege of being punched on the nose. We're paying billions every year.
We were reminded of that this week, when Brussels unveiled its long-promised review of the scandalous Common Agricultural Policy, in return for which Tony Blair quietly gave up £1 billion of Britain's annual rebate from the EU in 2005.
And what did we get for that £1 billion? True, the review suggests minor changes to the CAP, including a proposal to scrap the set-aside scheme, under which farmers are paid for leaving their land uncultivated.
But the changes won't save a single euro. The CAP will continue to gobble up more than 40 per cent of the EU's budget, even though agriculture employs only five per cent of the population. Meanwhile, the money will still be spent in the same way, lavishing subsidies on INEFFICIENT farmers in countries such as France, Italy and Greece.
As for EFFICIENT British farmers, producing MORE food per acre from their larger farms, the plan is that their subsidies will be cut. Brilliant, isn't it?
At a time of world food shortages, who but the EU would press ahead with a hugely expensive scheme for rewarding the inefficient and punishing the efficient?
The worst of it is, at this time when food prices are soaring everywhere, that EU shoppers will go on having to pay some 20 per cent more than the world price for their weekly groceries.
So we're paying billions for the privilege of belonging to a scheme whose main effect is to make our food more expensive.
Why? Because European Commissioners (unless they happen to be British) adopt exactly the same policy as the voters in the Eurovision song contest: to hell with the European ideal or the quality of the song - just vote for your national interests.
Isn't it time somebody stood up for ours? There was a brief moment, of course, when it looked as if you and I were at last to be given the chance to tell the EU what we thought of it so far. That was when Tony Blair was cornered into promising a referendum on the European Constitution in Labour's 2005 election manifesto.
But to their shame, first he and then Gordon Brown ratted on that unequivocal pledge, pretending in outrageous defiance of the facts that the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were different documents.
Indeed, Mr Brown's refusal to keep that promise strikes me as a far blacker mark on his record than the debacle over the 10p tax band.
Corrupt
Gordon Brown
The tax changes in his 2007 Budget were an ill-considered blunder. His refusal to call a referendum was an affront to democracy, based on a bare-faced lie.
I have a great deal of sympathy, therefore, with Tory donor Stuart Wheeler and his application to the courts for an order compelling Mr Brown to keep his manifesto promise.
That sympathy grew even stronger this week when Commons Speaker Michael Martin announced he will launch a legal counter-challenge, arguing that Mr Wheeler's attempt to force a referendum amounted to an effort to override the will of Parliament.
Yes, Mr Martin has a point. If politicians were forced by law to keep all their election pledges, this country would be all but ungovernable. And surely it's for MPs - and not for a judge - to say whether we should have a referendum or not. At least we can get rid of the blighters when they break their promises.
But hasn't Mr Martin noticed that Parliament is regularly overruled by judges enforcing European laws? How ironic that he should seek to attack Mr Wheeler on this of all issues, when a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would offer our best hope of returning powers to the Parliament that Mr Martin says he's defending.
As we saw with the CAP this week, the EU is not going to change its corrupt and costly ways of its own accord, any more than the Balkan states are going to stop voting for each other in the Eurovision song contest.
It'll have to be forced to change. And what better way than giving us that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
To borrow a phrase from Terry Wogan: 'This is ridiculous.' Give us our chance to say so.
dailymailco.uk