Fainting in Coyles An occasional letter from the
Heart of Euroville
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
Explanation of Baghdad Bob's mistake
CENTCOM briefing that went astray
American special forces have this morning reported the successful
takeover of Baghdad airport. However further inspection by Irish
journalists of the lack of ground staff and no open services or shops revealed it
to be the Ryanair Baghdad airport. American troops have in fact landed
400 miles South of Baghdad but have announced that
they will avail themselves of the feeder bus that leaves from
Mohammed O'Kellys Irish bar every day at 6pm.
Iain Murray's piece over at Tech Central Staton about the veracity of the Iraq Bodycount Website figures, is an effective demlition job on what the website claims to be the minimum civilain casulaty figure. (Currently sitting around the 877 mark). The maximum figure seems to be fair as Iain states at 1050.
This is all pretty horrific, hundreds of civilians are dead, whether by Coalition fire or Iraqui fire, so much is true, but I would like to draw you attention to a little story in today's Guardian.
At least 966 people were killed in dawn attacks on more than a dozen villages in north-eastern Congo last week, UN investigators said yesterday.
The Guardian should be applauded for mentioning this, even if they do in less than two inches, but hold on. The confirmed dead figures in just one night in the Congo is greater than Iraqi body Count's flawed low figure and less than a hundred away from their inflated top possible figure. The war has been going on for over three weeks, huge amounts of munitions have been raining down on Iraqi cities nightly, yet in the Congo one nights work kills 966 at least. C'mon, where are the demonstrations, where is the action, where are the famous caring liberals, nowhere, nada, nothing. The UN has flaggedthis up but what do they propose theinternational community does about it.
The poor people of the Congo better not hold their breath, that is if they have any left in their bodies.
Here's a poem that I believe hits how people are dealing with the war in th UK.
Babylon & Beans
Your mum’s come, help her with the bags, kid.
Thank you very much indeed, this push towards
the defining moment, the final battle…
Mum, what we’re eating tonight, can I have
beans & chips…please mum…
No alternative, the strategic prize, a skirmish
before the real, we enter a critical phase…
Ask your dad, his turn tonight, it’s my night
out, you know that…
…with rules of engagement, we must hold hearts
and minds, using anti missile missiles, keeping
heads above the parapet, switching from hard to
soft hats….you understand…
Listen, can’t you just let me watch this stuff, it’s
war, you know, I mean Jack from next door’s out
there, isn’t he?
every conflict is unique, we’re on probation, in a war
of liberation and with Buster the army’s sniffer-dog
we can maintain momentum, evoking Koranic verses
in growing confidence…
What you mean war, my granddad was four years
in that nazi war wasn’t he…? Anyways, the kid’s
hungry, you agreed to Tuesday nights, you promised…
…a systematic sweep, a psychological impact with
a real sense of disgust, a genuine outrage…or synthetic,
we must sustain public opinion until every last element
of resistance…
Dad, look! What they’re doing…is that real…Dad!
Trigger-happy with toned-down weaponry, a skirmish before
the real, a sweep, with human shields, an adrenalin-fuelled
fight…
…’course it’s real son, they’re really killing, it’s not a
cowboy film, you know
Yes, a critical phase with these controversial cluster bombs
mending fences diplomatically, every conflict is unique…
Here you two, got some crisps from Tesco’s, keep the
wolves from the door.
No alternative, the baby hasn’t seen her father yet,we know
they’re using death squads and the martyrs shall be received
into heaven…
Did you get the beer, sweet…?
How can we all make a better life with seventeen hundred
sorties a day?
What you think, set for the night, aren’t you, all this war stuff,
give us a break.
A strategic prize, killed or captured the Nebuchadnezzar and
Medina Brigades, elite forces, in benign areas…
We got to support our boys, haven’t we…I mean…you know…
The anger level is increasing, so much evidence, waiving
their weapons in unison…
Dad, can we have beans & chips like last night…dad. please…
Thank you very much indeed, the push towards the defining
moment, the final…
I’m off then, mind he does his homework, gets his supper,
in bed by ten latest, here, kid give us a kiss, don’t watch
all that stuff, your eyes’ll drop out.
We can all work together with shock ‘n awe…shoot ‘n scoot
can’t we…?
* * *
Nicholas Rawson
Fool’s Day, 2003.
Isle of Tiree
Apparently this lot came from an Australian tourism website, sadly I don't have the link, but I was bored, it is friday afternoon after all.
I particularly like, 7, 8 ,10, 13, 22
1. Q: Does it ever get windy in Australia? I have never seen it rain on
TV,
so how do the plants grow? (UK)
A: We import all plants fully grown and then just sit around watching
them die.
2. Q: Will I be able to see kangaroos in the street? (USA)
A: Depends how much you've been drinking
3. Q: I want to walk from Perth to Sydney - can I follow the railroad
tracks? (Sweden)
A: Sure, it's only three thousand miles, take lots of water...
4. Q: Is it safe to run around in the bushes in Australia? (Sweden)
A: So it's true what they say about Swedes...
5. Q: It is imperative that I find the names and addresses of places to
contact for a stuffed porpoise? (Italy)
A: Let's not touch this one.
6. Q: Are there any ATMs (cash machines) in Australia? Can you send me a
list of them in Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville and Hervey Bay? (UK)
A: What did your last slave die of?
7. Q: Can you give me some information about hippo racing in Australia?
(USA)
A: A-fri-ca is the big triangle shaped continent south of Europe.
Aus-tra-lia is that big island in the middle of the pacific which does
not... oh forget it. Sure, the hippo racing is every Tuesday night in
Kings
Cross. Come naked.
8. Q: Which direction is North in Australia? (USA)
A: Face south and then turn 90 degrees. Contact us when you get here
and
we'll send the rest of the directions.
9. Q: Can I bring cutlery into Australia? (UK)
A: Why? Just use your fingers like we do.
10. Q: Can you send me the Vienna Boys' Choir schedule? (USA)
A: Aus-tri-a is that quaint little country bordering Ger-man-y,
which
is...oh forget it. Sure, the Vienna BoysChoir plays every Tuesday night
in
Kings Cross, straight after the hippo races. Come naked.
11. Q: Do you have perfume in Australia? (France)
A: No, WE don't stink.
12. Q: I have developed a new product that is the fountain of youth.
Can you tell me where I can sell it in Australia (USA)
A: Anywhere significant numbers of Americans gather.
13. Q: Can I wear high heels in Australia? (UK)
A: You are a British politician, right?
14. Q: Can you tell me the regions in Tasmania where the female
population
is smaller than the male population? (Italy)
A: Yes, gay nightclubs.
15. Q: Do you celebrate Christmas in Australia? (France)
A: Only at Christmas.
16. Q: Are there killer bees in Australia? (Germany)
A: Not yet, but for you, we'll import them.
17. Q: Are there supermarkets in Sydney and is milk available all year
round? (Germany)
A: No, we are a peaceful civilisation of vegan hunter gatherers.
Milk is
illegal.
18. Q: Please send a list of all doctors in Australia who can dispense
rattlesnake serum. (USA)
A: Rattlesnakes live in A-meri-ca which is where YOU come from.
All Australian snakes are perfectly harmless, can be safely handled
and
make good pets.
19. Q: I have a question about a famous animal in Australia, but I
forget
its name. It's a kind of bear and lives in trees. (USA)
A: It's called a Drop Bear. They are so called because they drop out
of
gum trees and eat the brains of anyone walking underneath them. You can
scare them off by spraying yourself with human urine before you go out
walking.
21. Q: I was in Australia in 1969 on R+R, and I want to contact the girl
I
dated while I was staying in Kings Cross. Can you help? (USA)
A: Yes, and you will still have to pay her by the hour.
22. Q: Will I be able to speak English most places I go? (USA)
A: Yes, but you'll have to learn it first
Last night while traversing the Brussels metro system I noticed that the Royal Belgian Air Force has started a recruitment campaign. The big glossy posters that were up in most stations were explicitly advertising and open day, but the above was the main strap line! Well the Belgian defence ministry's head may be in the clouds but for lawds sake!
Now I do not want to be down on the Belgians, after all I enjoy my life here, but hold on a moment. Have you ever heard a better or more accurate advert,.
Join the Belgian Air force! What pray is it for, who would, unless they wanted subsidised training to go on to commercial carriers? Part of the incentive for joining the military must be that you want to do the job, or so I would have thought. But when we learn that the average age of Belgian military personell is pushing 40 then I just don't get it. What are they for? And no it cannot be so that Louis Michel can pontificate about his terribly important place in the world, can it?
After last weeks near Apochraphyl comment about the difference between Southampton and Portsmouth comes todays little gem. The Telegraph reports about BFBS based in Kuwait. Currently the hit list has humour as black as a Republican Guard uniform.
Popular inter-troop song requests include The Animals' We Gotta Get Out of this Place and Thin Lizzy's The Boys are Back in Town. On Monday, an armoured unit in the Iraqi desert mocked a battallion further away from the action with D:Ream's Things Can Only Get Better.
Though I am not so sure that Chumbawaumba will be so pleased to hear that their Tubthumpin described thus...
rallying cries against not just the enemy in the desert, but the significant anti-war section of the British public.
The band have a stop the war button prominently on their website and are part of the global idiotarian movement.
Dammit, the problem is that you cannot have copywright over peoples minds, and I wonder if they are going to refuse the money they will be earning from BFBS.
Thinking about BFBS does send me into nostalgia land, growing up as a camp brat in Germany, it filled every day with harmless drivel, like a huge amorphous balnket.
If you want to support them or send a message to anybody out there there is a request link (The broadcasts are heard by both US and UK military) go to the link.
An American general today made a fleeting visit to the damaged and disconsulate capital. It was on a mission to encourage forward troops and to hold peace talks with the defeated opposition. The opposition spokesman was seen on State broadcasters claiming that the American advances were mythical and that their overweening arrogance would be overthrown by popular support and a long term guerrilla action. Hamed Al-Solaaana proclaimed that American military might could never win the hearst and minds of the people and swore that the political leadership remained in place and was solid in its support for the regiemes policies. However the general pointed out that many in the political establishment were secretly talking to American and coalition forces, and though less than half had actually defected he expected more to join them.
Colin Powell then left the meeting with EU leaders.
The EU really doen't get it, first we have Chirac telling the candidate countries to shut up, in todays Die Presse we have Gunter Verheugen announcing that the signatories of the Vilnius Declaraction in support of the coalition didn't mean it.
When will he and others like him realise that the peoples of the enlargment countries have shaken off one vile dictorship with the heartfelt support of the Anglo-American alliance and the power of Nato. Europe, in its hand-wringing shilly-shallyness sat and did not want to rock the boat, stability was all, as it is today. But it was the stability and silence of the grave. The newly free peoples of the East can see horror as well as anybody else, but they have real knowledge that to stop horror one has to stand up to it. The EU is a nice club, but seems to be setting up different membership rights and privilages. One privilage is the right to shut up when you believe in something that is contrary to the Franco-German hegemony. But more, much more than that. If somebody has the temerity to stray from the Francomande script then you don't even mean it. When will the Commission and euro-polititians have the decency to believe somebody when they say something.
It is apparent from the attitude to referenda (viz Denmark and Ireland) that saying no is not an acceptable answer, and in the case of the Vilnius Group, disagreeing is not actually meant.
There is a man in the European Parliament, a man named Christian Huber, who is the senior civil servant working on the European Parliament's Foriegn Affairs Committee. This is an extremely responsible job and involves setting agendas and so on. This blather-headed moron has taken to sending emails to a large section of the parliament's staff (and helpfully failing to BCC. so yes I know who they are - funnily enough only two Anglo names appear on the list, so I expect that he feels he is safe ground with most of them). Of course he used the parliaments own email system, thus the tax payer is funding this bleating idiot.
OK. I know it's a joke, I know I am supposed to able to take a joke, but jokes require implicit support for them to be funny and this is indicative of the assinine attitude of the debate here in Brussels. I guess my gripe is that he is a senior civil servant who by rights has to act in an impartial way.
A message from the Pre(dator)sident!!!
Death to all dissenters
President George W. Bush's address to the nation after the US has bombed the UN
Eighteen months after the destruction of the twin towers, another New York landmark is in ruins. The UN building no longer stands on the East River. The stench of death rises from its rubble. The flags of the UN's member nations no longer flutter proudly on their poles. They've been burnt to cinders
A triumphant George W. Bush has just appeared at the press conference in Washington. "My fellow Americans, we have won another major battle in the war against terror. A few hours ago, as Commander-in-Chief, I ordered a bombardment of the UN building by the US Navy, missile strikes by the US Air Force and a mop-up operation by US Marines. As a result, one of this nation's most dangerous enemies has been absolutely and entirely destroyed.
"As you know, we tried very hard to achieve a diplomatic outcome with the UN. We permitted word inspectors inside the building to negotiate on adjectives, verbs and split infinitives for a revised UN resolution, but were treated with intransigence and delay. Just as the Iraqis mocked us for the past 12 years, refusing to demonstrate compliance, the UN has flouted our will for the past 12 weeks. We did not wish to go to war against the UN but, finally, had no choice.
"As Colin Powell will explain later, we had undeniable evidence that the UN was sheltering states with known terrorist connections. And some of these states had weapons of mass destruction. To allow the UN to continue to exist-under its existing leadership-was to place our nation at growing risk.
"With the enthusiastic endorsement of Tim Blair and Jim Howard, our most loyal allies, and using modern weapons of such incredible accuracy that they can be targeted at people of different blood groupings or astrological signs, we were able to eliminate all those who've opposed us, all those who've refused to endorse the war on Iraq.
"Yes, one of our cruise missiles did go astray and sadly, destroyed the Statue of Liberty. But you may recall that this was a gift from the French who, in recent times, have been unswerving allies of Saddam Hussein.
"We've destroyed the UN without the loss of one American life-apart from some of the catering staff and a couple of receptionists. The pro- Hussein Huns-we should have finished them off in World War II-are kaput. The Russians-we should have nuked them in the 1950s-can no longer threaten us with their 'nyet'.
And all those decadent, gutless old Europeans that Dick Rumsfeld has identified are now wishing they'd backed us when they had the chance. But don't say I didn't warn them! You're either with us or you're against us.
"We're forming a new Security Council comprising those US states run by Republican governors-states such as my own beloved Texas and Brother Jeb's Florida. But to demonstrate our commitment to globalism, the newly formed council will also have room for a couple of foreign nations. Let's have a big round of applause for the UK and Australia, for my good friends Tommy and Jack. And they'll be joined by Ariel Sharon.
"Yes, we've achieved regime change at the UN. Koffee Onan was taken into custody and is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay as we speak. After he makes a full confession at a military tribunal, he will be summarily executed. Onan, a real wanker, has been one of al-Qa'ida's top operatives, a personal lieutenant to Osama bin Laden.
"We've also arrested His Holiness the Pope, as it's clear from his unhelpful comments that the Vatican also urgently needs regime change. The new Pope will be a Protestant, the pastor to every US president since Nixon. Let's have a big round of applause for Billy Graham.
"The war on Iraq will be over by midday Saturday. The Seventh Fleet will immediately head to France, anchor in the Seine and wipe out Paris. We'll nuke North Korea on Sunday, Iran on Monday and make Saudi Arabia a part of Texas by Wednesday at the latest.
"I will not take questions at this time.
Indeed, I will not be questioned at all. By anyone. At any time.
God bless America."
Oh by the way if you want to you can email him, initial surname at europarl.eu.int if you feel like it.
In the rugged Telemark district of Norway lives a man who has a little trouble with his name. Aftenposten has this rather charming story.
An Iraqi refugee now living in Norway's mountainous Telemark district has applied to change his name to Dastanse Rasol Hussein. His current name, Saddam Hussein, is far too troublesome. So good people of Telemark, be nice to him, its not his fault.
Le Figaro which first announced the buggers in the EU scandal has now revealed two interesting aspects of the case. The first is that the EU's investigators were so cack handed that they alerted the listeners, thus making it impossible to find out who they were. Second is that now they are unable to define which organistation it was that had the desire to listen in they can make allegations about anybody they feel like. And this being Europe guess who they turn the spotlight on, Isreal of course.
The resaon, because in Berne in 1998 Mossad was caught trying to bug the offices of Hezbollah. Now why would they want to do that? But it all suits the increasingly anti-Isreali attitudes of the 19th republic - in a week when we are told that anti-semetic attacks in France have quadrupled as pointed out by The Radical.
I found this on the Commission intranet, and it makes amusing reading, if only in its impotence.
It has been asked already, and I am asking again. Why are all the soft drinks available to us only from the Coca-Cola company, or a subsidiary of Coca-Cola?
Simple realy, unless you are an ardent fan of Vimto or Iron Bru then your choices are slim. America produces the most popular drinks, simple as that realy, and yes they adapt to market conditions, if there were popular European drinks then they would be available - market economics deal with it, nitwit.
With the ongoing illegal invasion of Iraq by US lead troops, with the USA and Australia tagging along, a movement of boycotting certain American made goods is growing.
This is the first example of the movement I have heard of so if it is growing then it nees to move pretty fast to be effective. There again Europe will have to start producing products that people want to buy at prices Europeans are preparee to pay, don't hold your breath. Oh and did I note that the UK was kept out of the equation, as well as Poland and others, yes, thought so
In order to be realistic, some US products are not included. Obviously, here in the Commission we are forced to use MS products (american) in computers where the CPU is made by Intel (also american).
Same problem, we must stop using American goods, oh bugger we can't do that cause we could not operate without them, so lets have a boycott of some American goods, the ones that aren't essential to our operations as effective beurocrats, that'll help.
Instead this boycott movement is aimed at foods and drinks, as well as oil companies.
Coca-Cola is one of the obvious companies on the boycott list. And I am trying to participate in this boycott.
Why doesn't the enterprise running our resturaunts provide us with some European drinks?
The list of products being boycotted is:
Kraft
Campbell
Coca-Cola
Colgate Palmolive
Del Monte
Del Monte: especially bananas
Chiquita: Bananas
Dole: Bananas
Tenderly
Georgia Pacific
Heinz
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson Wax
Kellogg's
Kimberly - Clark
M&M's
Mars
Pepsi Cola
Procter & Gamble
Buddweisser Beer
ESSO
Shell
So instead we should use oil produced by that wonderful, clean and un corrupt and bloodstained firm, Total Fina Elf. That'll show them.
Lord only knows what this idjit is trying to prove, that Europe cannot operate without American know!how and capacity, well if that is what he is trying to prove he's done it very well.
Worldwide Travel Warning: The risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks in public places, including tourist sites, will be especially high during military action in Iraq. You should be vigilant, take sensible precautions, be aware of local sensibilities, monitor the media, and check our Travel Advice for the country you live in or plan to visit.
Nothing Strange there, though I am suprised that they don't suggest the wearing of sensible shoes and pretending to be Irish - everybody loves the Irish.
The vast majority of visits are trouble-free. Visitors should be alert to the dangers of street crime in the cities. Belgium shares with the rest of the world, including the UK, an increased threat from terrorist incidents of international origin.
There is no recent history of terrorism in Belgium. The Belgian government has to date exercised a strong and effective counter-terrorism policy. We do not have information of any specific treat to western or to British interests from terrorism in Belgium, but the area round Brussels in particular hosts a number of international institutions (EU, NATO) which might be seen as attractive targets to terrorists. You should be vigilant in these areas, in public places and areas frequented by tourists. All British institutions and businesses should review their security arrangements.
However the Queen's visit last week was cancelled on the grounds of "Security concerns" so those of us that live here better watch out. As I walked to work this morning, looking every inch the Brit (well live the stereotype I say) I was spat at and jostled for being an "agressor anglais" or something like that. I wasn't going to folow the fellow into his cafe where Al-jazeera was palying full blast to find out the precise terms. Maybe my idea to hang an 'In My Name' banner off my balcony to compansate for the rainbow PACE banners fluttering around the communeis not such a good idea. For that matter hanging a union jck there for next weeks Turkey match might not be too bright either.
Back to the FO
France: The vast majority of visits to France are trouble-free. You should be alert to the dangers of car and street crime in cities. France shares with the rest of the world, including the UK, an increased threat from terrorist incidents of international origin.
There have been no terrorist attacks on mainland France since the bombing of the Paris Metro in 1995. You should, however, be aware of the risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, in all countries of the world, against civilian targets in public places, including tourist sites. Although we are not aware of any specific threat to western or to British interests from terrorism in France, we believe there is an increased general threat to visibly British institutions and organisations from global terrorism in France, as there is in all other countries in Europe. Against this background, UK nationals should be vigilant in public places and areas frequented by tourists
The attack on the chemical plant in Tolouse seems to have been forgotten. There again who needs terrorists ahen armed gangs patrol the peripherique carrying out attcks on police stations with RPGs. After the Vile ones refusal to articulate any support for the coalitions armed forces, implying that he and France believe that there is some moral equvilance between the two sides in this war, I am suprised that there is no threat to 'British or Western interests from terrorists in France'. It's not so much the terrorists that are the danger it is the french state itself.
EU Obs report a glorious gaff (Surely stroke of honesty) yesterday in Norway. Jörgen Holmquist the EU's Director general of Fisheries (his predecessor Steffen Smidt was sacked under pressure from the Don last year) said that "In fisheries, Spain is hated and feared", realising what he had said he then desperately backpeddalled and then withdrew the word 'Hated' , "I retract ‘hated’. Let us say that they are criticized."
His purpose for being in Norway was to soften up public opinion for a future acession referendum in Norway expected sometime in th not too distant future.
Of course Norway is viatl for European interests - it has fish for starters, unlike Europe that has decimated its own stocks under the criminal Common Fisheries policy. And as he states pretty bluntly the Spanish would like to get their grubby trawlers all over Norways fish. It also has Oil, and (see pervious post) given Europe has now decided that North Sea oil is an ËU strategic asset, the Europeans would quite like to gain control of that too.
Recently Europe has been firing illegal tarrifs at Norway to force that country to allow Spanish fishermen access to its waters. The tariffs are against Norwegian fish products. This high handed colonial approach to Norway is not going down too well in the Fijords and I somehow doubt that the hapless Holmquist latest comments will have gone any way to allay those fears.
So the sacking of Rick Nye and Mark Magregor from central office was all about clearing out modernisers was it? Not when the new Deputy head of Communications is non other than Richard Chalk. Chalkie is the current Head of Media Ops for the Tories in the European Parliament and has a history of working on succesful camapigns. Such as the chief Ken Clarke for God err... make that Tory leader campaign, the Steve Norris is better than you, London Mayor campaign and so on.
Chalkie is credited by some for increasing the Tory MEP hit rate with the national press, though I doubt many of you have noticed. There again the fact that the Tory press office did expand exponmentially in the time. (The wages are pretty good over here as well). The reason for the decent wage - quite shocking thought for anybody who has ever worked in Smith Square is that unlike in London party staffers are payed out of the taxpayers pocket and are officially considered European People Party/European Democrat assets, and are essentially civil servants.
Interestingly he has cultivated good links with the Independant, which show he has an eye on expanding Tory readership into places where they have never been before.
He once stood for the Blue corner in the City of Durham
I raise my glass to his future career, and pray that the stories emanating from at least one Tory MEP that he jumped before he was pushed are false.
BLAIR WANTS KOK... AGAIN,
and this time he suceeds
Fine headline, but sadly it's unlikely to appear in any respectable journal, nor is the comparable
Kok employed by Europe
The truth is a little more subdued, the result of the EU summit held last week are finally filtering through and it appears that the discredited former socialist PM of Holland has been given the job of working out why there are so few people with jobs in the EU. To be fair he presided over what was known as the Dutch Miracle, where the unemoployment fell in Holland from about 12% to undef 4%, but there where mmany accusations of fiddling the figures and statistical ingenuity at the time - The ILO were particularly cautious.
Whatever he has the job for good or ill. Apparently Blair was his main proposer and Blair had wanted him to head up the Convention, the job finally going to Discard the Stain. I do however suspect that he will not challange the ongoing desire to stamp out "harmful tax competition" which was given another push.
Oh yes and there are calls for "re-inforced co-operation" over EU gas and oil stocks. ie. Europe will decide as to what happens with 'Europes' oil and gas. Now I know that the Dutch have gas platforms, but the only oil I can think of other than the North Sea are the vast quantities of snake oil pouring from the Elysee Palace. So the North Sea stocks are regharded as EU strategic assets.
Shock horror, thoughtful conservatives exist, spread the news. Admittedly a bit fluffy on the whole European Issue, but other than that good commonsensical thinking. Cripes what have I just said. Seriously these people deserve to be listened to a bit. One of the authors James Mawdesly is better known as the bloke who made a habit of getting imprisoned by the Burmese regieme, the other Ben Rogers is similarly directed. Faith, trust the individual and most importantly living these ideas through to their natural conclusion.
Conservative ideas The ideas that bring Conservatives together include the following:
Ø Freedom: people should be free to take decisions about their own lives
Ø Light government: the state is there to serve not to dictate
Ø Rule of law: it is the rule of law which secures our liberty
Ø Strong defence: in Britain we have a valuable heritage and a way of life worth
defending
Conservatism is based on the belief that people are more important than the state. It combines a respect for individual liberty, and a belief that people should help each other. Compassion comes through people, not through the state. All of us are responsible for the condition of our country.
Now this might be a little in bad taste, but I have just discovered that I have become a casualty of the war. Not the real one I hasten to add but the petty one. I had been commissioned to create the layout for a French MEP, just a few days a month. But my services are no longer required, shame you might say, shouldn't have been working for the French in the first place you might add. I can only say in my defence that every euro is a good euro. (When you live in euroville).
After talking to his office, I can confirm that the comment - We want to work with a Frenchman, translates roughly into - we don't want to work with an Englishman.
Following up Peter Cuthbertson's execellant post on Charly Kennedy, now listen to his man in Europe, Graham Watson. Watson is not merely the head of the UK Lib Dems in Brussels, but also the head of the ELDR Group, the third largest group in Parliament.
The war against Iraq is not a just war, but the EU must nevertheless unite to rebuild both Iraq after the conflict and its common foreign policy.
"It could yet be that this crisis will prove a turning point, if our Heads of State and Government accept the need for a common foreign policy and a single EU seat at the United Nations Security Council. Europe's troubled tribalism means that Washington wins the day. If there is a message for London, Paris, Berlin and Madrid it is that if we had a common foreign and security policy, Europe's world view would prevail."
Such a trail of sanctimonious claptrap has hardly been heard before. What the devil can he mean by this? Other than the abject surrender to the anti-democratic, pressure-group dominated nonentities that fail to lead. Talking to ancient nations as if they were troublesome children caught having a scrap in the playground. How he thinks that having one voice (decided by whom pray?) on the security council would give us a stronger voice. Putting the current 15, and the future who knows, countries on a par with a denuded russia and a free and democratic China seems patant and dishonest nonsense.
I winder what it is that he so dislikes, what it is about our democracy he so distrusts, what it is about our histories he so denies? This little man, unheard of outside the boudoirs of the nlargement nations presumes to disppense with their right to an independant voice. Shame on him and his collection of historically and culturally retarded freinds.
Check this one out, today is called in Europe "Spring Day". The Spring day is a day for propagandising in schools across the continent about how simply spiffing the EU is.
Message from Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission
20/03/03
Even in difficult, tension-filled days like these, none of you should forget that European integration has to keep moving forward.
Dear young Europeans,
Even in difficult, tension-filled days like these, none of you should forget that European integration has to keep moving forward.
World crises and rifts between Member State governments are an added reason for -- not against -- greater European unity tomorrow.
The brief past of our united Europe tells of divides bridged, of countries separated by world wars and later by the Cold War, and then gradually starting to work together in the awareness of a shared destiny.
.....
But tomorrow's European Union cannot be built without its young people and certainly not on opposition to them. So it is vital for your generation to take part in the European integration process, even if you are critical of it, taking a constructive attitude based on accurate information, the free exchange of ideas and openness to dialogue.
Spring Day in Europe is an opportunity for you to grasp the challenges and possibilities that lie before you, a chance to be heard and to express your ideas. Over 5 000 schools throughout Europe -- and in some countries beyond too -- are taking part in today's discussion on our continent's future. Together with the sponsors, Michel Barnier, Ana Palacio, Georgios Katiforis, Henning Christophersen and Olivier Duhamel, I want to thank all the teachers and organisers. I hope the event will bring you even closer on the issues that concern Europe and that it may help to put Europe's future on a sounder and surer footing.
So kiddies, even if you do not agree you should say so and we will ignore you and carry on intergrating anyway
Romano Prodi shows us exactly why the EU has got this whole crisis so hgorribly wrong.
"The onslaught of war has put paid to the international community's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis within the United Nations" - Sadly of course the peaceful route would have been the wholehearted support of the French and other fellow travellers to show thart the free world meant business.
"The Commission is committed to delivering humanitarian aid quickly and effectively, under international auspices, where it is most needed". - Except that Chris Patten has already said that Europoe will not pick up the tab for reconstruction (Unless we get the juicy contracts)
Whatever the outcome of the war, there can be no denying this is a bad time for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, for the European Union as a whole, for the authority of the UN, for NATO, and for transatlantic relations. - Check out the priorities here. First and foremost of course is the future of a single foreign and defence policy - now that's what I call vital.
And it goes on, the disciples opf the Oportunities of a beneficial crisis look forward.
Europe can make an effective contribution to peace in the world only if its nations pull together within the European Union. We all agree that we owe our wealth and prosperity to the Union. It is not in our interest to continue relying on others when it comes to defending our values militarily. - So there you have it ços we cannot do anything, we must make sure that nobody can.
And they really thought they would hear something interesting?
Fascinating story just up on the BBC.
"Electronic bugging devices have been found at offices used by French and German delegations at a European Union building in Brussels, officials have confirmed".
Of course everybody will blame the Americans and 'perfidious Albion', but hold on a moment, the Commission itself has its own internal security forces DG1(A) a small but shadowy organisation. There again all the cleaners in the building are North African, so maybe it's Al Queada, hmmm lets roll on 'the conspiracy theories,
The Greek presidency of the EU has on its sie a vote forum on EU policy to the Iraq crisis. Dammit, with these results if I didn't live here I would go into shame induced purdah.
Note the resultsd for these choice questions.
1. There are a number of different actors involved in the crisis on Iraq. Rate your general feeling about each on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being very favorable and 10 being very unfavorable.
Iraq - Very favourable 9.5 percent
Very unfavourable 22.1
USA - Very favourable 15.2 percent
Very unfavourable 54.4 percent
Uh!! I just cannot compute those figures, I try reason, prejudice, whatever I try anything that my life and training has prepared me for and I still don't get it. America - leave us, just forget about us and in 50 years consider recolonising us again. We do not deserve the freedom that you have earnt with your blood, Sorry but its time for you to let us rot.
5 Given what you know about the situation today, do you think an attack on Iraq is justified?
Yes - 6.7 percent
No - 97.3 percent
6. Do you believe that Iraq currently has biological or chemical weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction?
Yes - 54.4 percent
No - 28 percent
So he has them but we should do nothing about it.
8. Based on what you know now, which comes closest to your view? If there is a war with Iraq:
i. My country should join with the US and others and send troops - 3.5 percent
iv. My country should support Iraq - 2.3 percent
v. My country should use diplomatic means instead of military force - 82.4 percent
9. If a war happens, the 15 countries of the European Union will all be affected in some way. Which comes closest to your view?
iii. There needs to be a common EU policy that everyone agrees with, before any significant actions are taken - 75 percent
So there you have it, simply put the reason why America need never listen to Europe ever again. We think they are dangerous, we won't do anything about it, we should sit around discussing it and we should wait for Europe to come up with a joint policy that everybody here agrees with before we do anything anyway. (And how long would that be - about as long as a Commission communique on frozen peas)
A very interesting post from Strategy Turk on the un-enviable position that that country faces.
Though the author carries through the canard about oil, he then flattens Germany and France.
GERMANY – €600 Million export to Iraq in 2001
As for Germany, Deutsche Telecom suffered losses of almost 24.7 billion Euros; various German banks such as Deutsche Bank also suffered huge losses. German companies well known for their machinery and engineering have been establishing contracts with Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991. The executives of a German company DEGUSSA, sold centrifuge equipment, which could be used for civilian or nuclear weapons purposes to Iraq despite knowing it might be used for dangerous purposes. Experts have said that such centrifuge technology could help Iraq overcome its biggest challenge to building a bomb: obtaining weapon-grade fissile material. A former executive of DEGUSSA Michael Jansen stated, “By German laws and German standards, there were no illegal deliveries,”
Karl-Heinz Schaab, a German technician convicted of treason in 1999 for selling Iraq secret plans for building a centrifuge to enrich uranium to nuclear weapons grade. Schaab sold Iraq plans that he stole from the German company MAN. For that, he was convicted of high treason, fined a mere $32,000 and ordered to serve a suspended five-year sentence.
Finally he reluctantly concludes that Turkey's national interest rests with the allies.
The problem with Europes numbers. Thanks to the daghtator and all the way fromAndrew Sullivan comes an article from Stratfor's George Friedman.
It may be true that a simple majority of Europe's nations would support the US,
Stratfor's George Friedman performs the revealing task of actually counting where European countries stand on war against Saddam. There are three categories: countries that explicitly support the U.S position; countries that support it but wanted a second resolution; and countries that oppose war against Saddam. In the first camp, we have the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia and Montenegro. In the second camp - supportive - we have
the Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia - a bloc of five. But of these, The Netherlands sent Patriot missiles to Turkey before NATO approved the shipment, while the Czechs and Slovaks have sent chemical detection teams to Kuwait.
I'd put those five into the broadly positive column myself. That makes a total of 21 European countries in favor of war. Then we have the neutrals: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland and Norway. And the opponents: France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece. Friedman therefore notes something that should be borne in mind when you hear NPR, the BBC and others tell you that "Europe" opposes the war. By an overwhelming majority of 21 countries to five, Europe backs war, with five countries neutral. And of those 21, you have the second and fourth largest economies, Britain and Italy, the two biggest emerging powers, Spain and Poland, and the entire former Eastern bloc. It would be a huge majority in the future EU. So why isn't the story that Germany and France are now isolated on the continent?
But sadly Europe operates under Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), or as currently for Foriegn and Security matters, unanimity. Thus yup, the French could veto any action by Europe as it has done at the UN. What is more under the plans for an European Constitution currently being drawn up, individual nations would have no right to act independantly either. q.v. the infamous Chirac insult to the countries of Eastern Europe.
In fact there are plans to introduce simple majority voting, sponsored by France and Germany, which would make things more interesting, but as the figure below argue that under such rules German and French forces woumld be today parked in the Kuwait sand I do not see the plans being persued.
First Figure Current weighting second From 2005 For
What is more they have this wonderful principle, called the principle of Loyal Co-operation, which ,means that you should not do what everybody else doesn't want you to do.
Presidential Foreign Affairs Chief Adviser Tacan Ildem said
''during the meeting at the Cankaya Presidential Palace, a full consensus was reached that the government should take all measures to protect national interests of Turkey, and take steps immediately in line with its assessments under the recommendatory decision of the National Security Council (NSC) on January 31, 2003.''
Essentially they are looking at ways of overturning the previous decision not to allow US forces into Turkey, or to use Turkish airspace, air bases etc.
This happened after the Turkish Lira collapsed according to the FT; Interesting isn't it how oil prices went down and the stockmarkets of the US and UK went up on the announcement that the time for talking was over? Obviously the world economy doesn't follow the UN.
Will the truth about the Maastrict referendum come out - I doubt it
Thanks to The Radical for this. The trial of the leaders of Elf Aquitaine is opening in Paris, good, and about time too, but one aspect that will doubtless be quietly cold shouldered in the investigation is mentioned in the BBC report.
"and the alleged funnelling of funds via Elf to the then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl"
Cast your minds back to the Maastricht Referendum in France in 1992, and you feel like you are living withinthin the pages of Andrew Robert's Aachen Memorandum. The vote looked close, too close. Mitterand needed help, needed finance and was casting around in desperation. Mitterand announced his cancer a week before the vote to secure a sympathy ballot. Helmut Kohl, then the inassailable Chancellor gave him cash to help fund the referendum. In the end it was this cross party and cross national illegal funding that formed the case against Kohl, and the reason why he refused to testify.
This current trial will go into the quid pro quo - what did the French offer Germany in order to secure the funding that allowed the French yes vote to pass by less than 1 per cent? A difference of less than 500,000 votes, in a referendum where there were more than 1 million spoilt ballots.
For months the British contingent in the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have been polishing their boots, checking for halitosis and ironing their glad rags. On Wednesday Brussels was to play host to H.M. the Queen - fanfare, tabards and bugles.
However the powers that be at Buck House and N° 10, have decided "for security reasons" to cancel the trip.
I guess that they did not want the Head of State to be visiting a hostile nation at a time of war.
Right this is going to be a very long post, and for that I apologise in advance. Below I am putting the entire letter from Jules Muis to Neil Kinnock. The contents of this letter and the circumstances surrounding it condemn Kinnock’s management style, judgement and suitability to do a job as important as Vice-President of the European Commission. Kinnock commissioned this report, then hid it , preferring to destroy the career of a woman who was merely doing her job.
I will first selectively quote from the letter and try and explain what I mean.
“This is a prima facie professional-technical summary of observations on the accounting reform proposal by the Commission’s Accountant, dated 5th of April, 2002, addressed to Mr. Mingasson; as amended into an undated draft addressed to Ms Schreyer for Commission consideration. Note should be taken that the Commission’s Accountant tells us she has had no substantive co-operation/feedback from/within BUDG, including the Director-General, in preparing this note”.
Muis explains what is going on. Schreyer is the Budgets Commissioner and a German Green, employed merely because Schroeder wanted to throw a bone to Joshka Fischer his foreign secretary and coalition partner. Normal procedure for the big countries in the EU is that the opposition gets one Commissioner, to balance the one from the Government side (Kinnock – Labour, Patten –sort of Tory). BUDG is the internal designation for the Director General for Budgets.
“...the Accountant’s note is (not) too clear about the depth of effort required.[I have been through it at the Worldbank]. It would also challenge the Iron Horse, called Sincom, on its versatility to cope with it all; and if we factor in its present reliability, I would speculate its functionality will fall far short of eventually identified needs”.
Sincom is the infamous accounting system in the Commission. Andreason had shown how it could be fraudulently tampered with.
“The Commission lacks the necessary skill base, both in accounting and controls, as well as, I speculate, in project management for a project of this complexity and scale”.
The chief auditor does not believe the Commission is capable of financial reform!!
“This briefing would not be complete without pointing out the circumstances under which the new Accountant is presently working, i.e. in a perceived intrinsically hostile work environment, where she has to get control over a department haunted by a profound lack of qualified staff, a host of vacancies/absentees in critical functions, an entrenched mindset and positions/ functions, a power ambience totally catered to the DG who himself has strongly opposed her appointment in the first place, an upset Commissioner who stopped being her main sponsor when she found out she has to work with an individual whose insistent questions are threatening the regular flow of funds and potentially causing embarrassment in the process to the appearance of a smooth functioning BUDG outfit; and an interested staff audience that looks back at the history of the Commission and put their money and support on the most likely winner of the arm twisting exercise; rather than asking themselves who is more right and what is in the better interest of the Commission.
No Commission(er) can let nature have its course without him/herself being seriously exposed, if the source of the controversy proves to be right in the type of questions she raises”.
Quite, I couln’t put it better myself.
“At this stage, her (Andreason’s) demise, if it were to come that far, would be a serious blow to Reform, sending a signal that the old ways of keeping things from happening still work; and put all professionals within the Commission on notice that ‘might makes right’, whatever one’s professional convictions/duties.
The substance of Ms Andreasen’s communications so far seem factually substantive and correct”.
Remember Kinnock received this note the day before he destroyed her and announced her resignation – she had not in fact resigned. Shades of Stephen Byers.
“Also, Guth refers to the importance of the addressees being ‘informed about the work already undertaken for the modernisation of accounts’ but does not mention that the work has been at a virtual standstill since the drafting of this report; and hence, that none of the suggested deadlines have been met. In fact the impression is that BUDG having drafted this June report lost total interest subsequently”,
Eckart Guth, head of Commissioner Schreyer's private office – Mr Budget.
“The core problem is BUDG had no champion promoting the cause of improving accounting, to the contrary. I find it hard to accept we can blame the new Accountant not having been able to wrap her arms around this complex issue, with a homebase in a deep state of denial on the quality of the existing systems, embedded in a very top down managerial mono-culture, with a DG who only recently told the Audit Court he did not see the need for any accounting system at all. We should also not blame the Audit Court for not responding to this June note; if there is no serious audience”.
Nobody cares, nobody tries and if somebody does, it’s shoot the messanger time.
I apologise again for the length of this post but the seriousness of the case is such that ful disclosure rather than selective quotes seems to be the purpose of the sphere. The full letter is below.
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF MR. J. LUCHNER
MEMBER OF KINNOCK CABINET
Subject: Proposal by accounting Officer for accounting reform
1. Professional-technical summary of observations
This is a prima facie professional-technical summary of observations on the accounting reform proposal by the Commission’s Accountant, dated 5th of April, 2002, addressed to Mr. Mingasson; as amended into an undated draft addressed to Ms Schreyer for Commission consideration. Note should be taken that the Commission’s Accountant tells us she has had no substantive co-operation/feedback from /within BUDG, including the Director-General, in preparing this note.
Her note is backed up by a draft BUDG internal study, dated June 2001, which underpins to different degrees the proposal of the Accountant. The two documents do not really conflict with one another, but note should be taken of the fact that The Accountant seems to put more emphasis on the need for powerful information systems (SAP/R3 based), in addition to strongly supporting a less cavalier language of accounting, or rather: to go for a paradigm shift in the Commission’s language of accounting towards full accrual accounting; as well as a pre-condition for introducing the controls features for any budget/accounting system, what ever the language of accounting adopted.
Hence it should be well understood that the proposals made are, inevitably, as much about controls and information strategy reform as addressing accounting reform.
To put it differently: even if the Commission were to decide to stick to the present language of budget accounting, vintage public sector in the 60’s, and not go for full accrual accounting, it would still have to address the lack of controls issues on its contingent assets and liabilities, i.e. relating to income and expenditures charged against/ credited to the budget under the prevailing traditional system, which probably have also already gone through the discharge procedures of past years, but having a contingent asset or liability nature till certain conditions have been met (audits, closure, payment of pensions etc); as well as address the ‘Sincom issue’.
Therefor, care should be taken that the issue of the need for Reform in the Commission’s Accounting System is not only seen as a need emanating from a more ambitious language of accounting; it is equally a due diligence/controls need in and of itself, predicated on the assumption that contingent assets and liabilities that go with a blunt budget accounting system as presently applied, require the same duty of care in identifying, audit trails and follow-up, even if the are off balance sheet! The reason they do not have that same duty of care at this juncture is because the (incentive system at the basis of the) current budget language, in combination with the current discharge system are not conducive to follow contingent assets and liabilities with the same rigor. Which is the controls dimension the Accountant, quite rightly in my view, seems to put so much emphasis on. In addition to the need for an data architecture/ strategic information management system that meets both the immediate information-technical controls needs as well as more ambitious accounting objectives.
If I compare both notes, i.e. the June 2001 document and Ms. Andreasen’s note on internal consistency, then I see no dramatic differences other than room for more clarity on the rationale/driving force of the Reform process, mentioned above; Ms Andreasen’s has a different audience an therefor is more condensed: and could have been structured a bit more clearly [ the price to be paid for isolation?]; I perceive more sense of urgency in Ms. Andreasen’s for getting the informational-technical platforms harmonized and up to snuff first; and a more realistic assessment of resource needs, but, intuitively, also her proposals too do not look realistic enough: her request for resources is probably a good start for a feasibility project, followed by a
strategic operationalized plan. But a project of this kind will be major multi-year effort, dramatically changing the data-architectural, information- strategic as well as accounting language of the Commission, enhance institutional transparency hence powerbases, requiring an institution wide mobilization of resources, have major governance and organisational behavioral consequences. Neither the June 2001 nor, to a lesser extent, the Accountant’s note is too clear about the depth of effort required.[I have been through it at the Worldbank]. It would also challenge the Iron Horse, called Sincom, on its versatility to cope with it all; and if we factor in its present reliability, I would speculate its functionality will fall far short of eventually identified needs.
Also, The Commission lacks the necessary skill base, both in accounting and controls, as well as, I speculate, in project management for a project of this complexity and scale. With the fragility of the present systems as they are, the need is to minimize the risks by the extant team [damage control focussed maintenance] and for a different team to work on the new design [innovation], with a probable need for parallel runs for some time.
Also, I think, the rush to judgement that SAP is going to e the answer is, for all practical purposes probably right, but it will take more orderly process, an evaluation team, to arrive at that conclusion responsibly. The same, but in the other sense, can be said to the June 2001 paper when the author seems to bet for a further development of SI2 (Action 11 point – page 17) apparently without a clear oversight of the whole systems framework.
I appreciate Ms. Andreasen has made a best guess effort on resources needed, insofar foreseeable, but that much of the project will have the nature of a discovery process, hence contingency planning is imperative. I therefor fully support her suggestion to outsource the out-sourcable, but would like to add that it would seem wise to me, in view of the many entrenched intra en inter-service diverging views and interests, to have the project management as a whole equally outsourced. With a partnership/hybrid formula for an implementational team. That should be done on a results agreement basis.
One should be careful to avoid this project being seen as totally Accounting and Accountants driven; because it is not; there are major self-propelling controls/information management issues that makes a project of this nature imperative. Ideally a designated CIO could take responsibility for the whole or a project directorate, along the lines of the Reform Task Force. Most importantly, one of the actors missing in the June 2001 BUDG paper is the controls/ internal CFS unit (BUDG.D3). It is as if CFS has to do with all DG Controls except for the central ones….
For the rest I refer to our own observations on the essential flaws in the accounting system per our letter of 25/03/2002.
2. WORKING ENVIRONMENT
This briefing would not be complete without pointing out the circumstances under which the new Accountant is presently working, i.e. in a perceived intrinsically hostile work environment, where she has to get control over a department haunted by a profound lack of qualified staff, a host of vacancies/absentees in critical functions, an entrenched mindset and positions/ functions, a power ambience totally catered to the DG who himself has strongly opposed her appointment in the first place, an upset Commissioner who stopped being her main sponsor when she found out she has to work with an individual whose insistent questions are threatening the regular flow of funds and potentially causing embarrassment in the process to the appearance of a smooth functioning BUDG outfit; and an interested staff audience that looks back at the history of the Commission and put their money and support on the most likely winner of the arm twisting exercise; rather than asking themselves who is more right and what is in the better interest of the Commission.
No Commission(er) can let nature have its course without him/herself being seriously exposed, if the source of the controversy proves to be right in the type of questions she raises. We do not know Ms Andersen’s managerial capabilities, but we are sure she is raising the right questions and in a very short period of time, despite alleged across the board stonewalling of her colleagues. We do not think her procedural lack of communicational finesse to be an element in this, and see the fact they happen as a possible index of the lack of support she has inside DG BUDG: no-one protecting her avant la lettre. At this stage, her demise, if it were to come that far, would be a serious blow to Reform, sending a signal that the old ways of keeping things from happening still work; and put all professionals within the Commission on notice that ‘might makes right’, whatever one’s professional convictions/duties.
The substance of Ms Andreasen’s communications so far seem factually substantive and correct. They are benign in comparison with the assurance statement assertions we have seen from the DG’s in the recent assurance statement exercise; indeed of DG BUDG itself, which seem to have been shaken out its state of denial by default rather than self-design. She has grasped the key issues at hand, despite her uphill initiation and familiarization phase and relative to a heavy year-end closing workload, very fast indeed. Her intervention/ views/wishes to have up front acknowledgement of the inherent risk environment of the Treasury Management function, has triggered major emotions, but professionally, in particular with the hands on observations/experience she now has with the department, is fully understandable. So far the professional report card; we have no idea whether she is a good manager but would warn for any premature conclusions until she had a real chance to manage.
I this context, Eckart Guth, through his note of May 14, 2002, distributed the June 2001 Accounting Reform document to various actors involved in the debate on the Accountant’s functioning, suggests this work had given the new Accountant a flying start to implement her marching orders. This report, which basically borrows most of its ideas from a the so-called Montesinos report commissioned a year earlier, is a good base document addressing the WHAT question in transitioning from a mixed attribute/modified cash & accrual system to a mature accounting system. But it is also not a realistic analyses identifying the importance of the HOW, the organizational, procedural, systemic and information-technological issues, which are imperative, and crucial to the success of the implementation of any accounting system. Suffice to refer to the fact that even under the present, totally inadequate accounting language system, BUDG felt it necessary- under IAS prodding- to acknowledge the weaknesses in the underlying information systems to get the present budget accounting right. Needless to add what it would involve not only to fix the system, but also to make it adaptable to a much more demanding accounting language.
We speculate this may in part be due to lack of professional- technical awareness of the importance of such interface; and/or the chronic state of denial, witness the strong opposition from BUDG through the APC chair in auditing Sincom at the beginning as well as the end of 2001.
Also, Guth refers to the importance of the addressees being ‘informed about the work already undertaken for the modernisation of accounts’ but does not mention that the work has been at a virtual standstill since the drafting of this report; and hence, that none of the suggested deadlines have been met. In fact the impression is that BUDG having drafted this June report lost total interest subsequently, did not share it with the IAS team that was looking into accounting systems summer 2001; and despite promises to the contrary choose to totally ignore informal- but strong – recommandations by the IAS in 2001 to take any suggestion in the Commission’s standards- in particular prudence- out of its public statements. Which would have been a very easy, effective fix, avoiding external embarrassment, or worse, of the Commissions gross overstatement of its present state of accounting.
The core problem is BUDG had no champion promoting the cause of improving accounting, to the contrary. I find it hard to accept we can blame the new Accountant not having been able to wrap her arms around this complex issue, with a homebase in a deep state of denial on the quality of the existing systems, embedded in a very top down managerial mono-culture, with a DG who only recently told the Audit Court he did not see the need for any accounting system at all. We should also not blame the Audit Court for not responding to this June note; if there is no serious audience.
3. CONCLUSIONS
My suggestions would be for Neil to:
(1) Ask for a revised proposal segmenting more clearly the work to be done with- and without - changing the accounting framework, i.e. for controls/information management purposes on the one hand[this will make more clear the deficiencies in the system as it is; as an absolute minimum to fix]; and for purposes of a modernized language of accounting on the other. This proposal should come from the DG BUDG!
(2) Ask for a revised proposal that includes the role and contribution required by the Commission services as a whole, i.e. with participation of the RUF community; and the governance system of this Reform project. And that clearly answers the governance question.
(3) Ask for a clear, realistic timeline, properly contingency planned, clarifying the involvement/ resource commitment of the different actors; and the deliverables that go with it.
(4) Before decisions are being taken, ask to have a special controls (self) assessment done by the Sincom community, users and producers, on the present functionality of Sincom and its resourcefulness to deal with the old as well as new challenges inherent to a more ambitious accounting system; and solutions to the problems {the burning platform phase}. So that the opinion of the information Community is known (but not necessarily followed. Have this self-assessment independently reviewed by outside consultants; or let outside consultants run the self assessment exercise.
(5) Suggest that, given the fragility of the present systems the Accountant not be distracted too much, but to make sure the extant fragile systems works as good as possible; and come up with a special interim plan to that effect.
(6) Instruct the accountant, moving forward, to take the most dangerous sting out of our financial statements, i.e. that they approximate compliance with international standards, and have been prepared conform the prudence principle. That will take at least the false pretence out of Commission statements of its financial accountability. The IAS proposed this a year ago.
(7) And for the Accountant to be supported by external consultants in this blueprint phase on all matters referred to above; and to express a preference to have implementational project management as a whole, outsourced, on a partnership bases.
(8) The idea that the IAS should become the auditors of the opening balances, will simply not be doable and turn us into de facto compliance controllers. This is the job of the RUF Community and CFS…..
(9) Finally, the Commission should realize if it entails on a project like this, it engages in a multi-annual program, going to the heart of institutional transparency by introducing one language of business/ data/strategic informational architecture, probably ‘busting’ the home grown, each for himself, DG driven information management culture. It should only do so, if it has a Commissioner who is willing to own such change program; who has the stamina and spine to take a lot of shit; and see it through consistently. Therefor it is so important to first let the RUF Community itself come to its own conclusions a) that the present free for all language is untenable {the assurance statement exercise has already done the groundwork); that SAP is probably the only sound option (but go through a due diligence procedure)
Copies: IAS management team Jules Muis
