Rupert Matthews: Whilst Europe is favourable to Serbia's ascession to the EU, Kosovo is being ignored

Rupert Matthews works in publishing and is currently preparing to take over from Roger Helmer as one of the MEPs for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region.

"The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."

Well, Bismarck always was a cynic - but he was no fool. And now, more than a century after his death, he is still worth listening to. Especially now that the EU is considering expansion in those very same Balkans to embrace Serbia.

Serbia has applied to join the European Union, and the EU seems to be looking favourably on the idea. So much so, in fact, that the EU is turning a blind eye to some distinctly non-communitaire behaviour on the part of the Serb government.

Serbia began its membership negotiations in 2003. The first step is a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA). This involves the EU offering tariff-free access to some or all EU markets, plus financial assistance. In return the candidate country is expected to make commitments to political, economic, trade or human rights reform.

Rupert Matthews: Only the EU's cheerleaders in the press ignore the issues and focus on discrediting personalities

Rupert Matthews works in publishing and is currently preparing to take over from Roger Helmer as one of the MEPs for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region.

Ulterior Motives from the Press?

“Surely not!” I hear you cry. “The very idea!” Well, quite.

The British press is having a bad time of it right now. The fall out from the News of the World phone hacking scandal is proving to be serious and wide reaching. As is the way with such inquiries the initial remit to look at phone hacking has been widened to embrace “the culture, practices and ethics of the press”. Predictably the tabloids are getting a bad time and just as predictably the great and the good are joining in the press-bashing with glee.

Well, they would. It is generally the great and the good who are of interest to the media. It is their dirty laundry that tended to get aired on the front page of the News of the World.

I suppose I should declare an interest here. In my youth I worked for the Daily Mail for a few months. Actually, I have two interests to declare. Since Roger Helmer has announced his retirement from the EU Parliament I am going to be taking his place as an MEP and so be elevated in a minor way to the ranks of the great and the good - at least so far as the journalists are concerned when they need a target for their scorn.

Rupert Matthews: Britain's fiscal rectitude, hard work and free markets should serve as an example for the rest of Europe

Rupert Matthews works in publishing and is currently preparing to take over from Roger Helmer as one of the MEPs for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region.

A few days I went out to Brussels as part of my preparations to take over from Roger Helmer as an MEP when he retires in January. Now, I would like to tell you that my time was taken up with serious discussions about high politics, Britain's future in the EU and international finance. In fact, I spent most of the visit being shown where the nearest dry cleaners is, where a supermarket can be found and which cafe to avoid as it serves the worst tea in Brussels - which is saying something.

I did get announced at a formal meeting of the ECR Group (to which Conservative MEPs belong), but that was about it so far as hard politics went.

But at lunch on my second day I found myself at a table with a Greek chap. I wondered if it would be considered dreadfully tactless to bring up the vexed question of Greece and the Euro. I need not have bothered, he brought it up himself.

His key concern was not whether Greece would stay in the Euro or not, but whether Greece would be booted out of the EU entirely were it to leave the Euro. This, he declared would be very bad news indeed. His argument went something like this.

Rupert Matthews: We did not need a 12-year inquiry to know what happened on Bloody Sunday

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

The Saville Inquiry into the “Bloody Sunday” events in Londonderry (or Derry if you prefer) on Sunday 30 January 1972 lasted for 12 years and cost something getting on for £200 million. Lord Saville has listened to hundreds of people recalling what happened on a hectic, violent day nearly 40 years ago. His team has sifted through thousands of pages of evidence, recollections, data and opinions and will finally deliver its report next week.

But we have been here before. Lord Saville did not need to sit for 12 years to know what happened on Bloody Sunday. He only needed to look at the history books.

Take 5 March 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts. The city was on edge due to protests against British taxation (the American War of Independence was only a short while into the future). On 5 March an officer and private of the 29th Regiment of Foot were guarding the Customs House, with its government archives and treasure chest. A local man, Edward Gerrish, accused the officer of not paying a bill. He was given a clip round the ear and sent him on his way.

Two hours later he came back with a group of a dozen friends who began shouting abuse. This attracted a crowd that grew to be 500 strong, whereupon the guard of a dozen men was turned out under Captain Thomas Preston. The situation turned ugly as the crowd surged around shouting insults, throwing stones and making threats. Then Private Montgomery stumbled and fell to the ground. He was set upon by the crowd, including one large man wielding a club. Montgomery shot him. Hearing the shot, the other soldiers concluded the crowd was armed and opened fire before charging with their bayonets. Five civilians were killed and at least a dozen injured.

The British army exonerated their men of wrong doing. Those agitating against the British called this “The Boston Massacre” and blamed British military brutality.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews: The Government should release all the work of the Climate Research Unit for public scrutiny

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

There has been much talk recently – you can hardly get away from it – about Climage Change, but in all that talk there has been one name that has not been mentioned. This is odd as the career of this man has a lot to show us about the climate change phenomenon. And there is a role in this for David Cameron.

Trofim Lysenko was a Russian agricultural scientist born in 1898, who managed to produce some interesting and very useful agricultural results. Unfortuantely, Lysenko got the theories behind his practical successes completely wrong. In the fledgling science of agronomics he propounded the view that plant breeds were produced when parent plants acquired characteristics as they grew. The rival school of thought held that plant breeds appeared when plants were bred selectively to isolate genes and genetic material.

As the years passed, Lysenko’s work went awry. He began to cover up any results of his experiments that did not support his theory, while loudly publicising those results that did. Next he began faking results. Any scientists that spoke out against his ideas were harshly treated. Some saw their careers ruined, their work languished unpublished and several dozen were thrown into prison where they died.

With Stalin’s death in 1953, Lysenko’s main supporter was gone. The new Soviet leader, Khrushchev ordered Lysenko to publish all his data, not just the bits he wanted the public to see. Lysenko refused, Khruschev sent in the strong men and published the data himself. Lysenko was finished and his theories destroyed.

Now turn to climate change. This is, again, a very new science. It has only really been going some 25 years. Once again there are divergent schools of thought about what is driving climate change – which put simply are that it is either a natural cyclical process or is being caused by human activity. And once again a small group of influential scientists has latched on to one theory and is using political influence and state money to promote it and shout down other opinions.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews: What exactly are "the nations and regions" of the UK?

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

If you listen to the Labour Government, EU and their fellow travellers you will have heard a lot about the “nations and regions” of the UK. But what exactly are they?

Well, so far as the government is concerned the “nations” are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland while the “regions” are the bits and pieces into which they have carved up England. England as such, you will notice, does not exist as a nation.

The EU, of course, would much rather that there were no nations at all. Nations are those nasty recidivist entities that provoke all sorts of awkward questions such as  “Wouldn’t we all be a lot better off if we left the EU?” Much better to have a whole collection of regions, none of which is large enough or wealthy enough to stand on its own two feet and so much remain eternally subservient to the EU.

Historically, of course, none of this makes much sense.

The Scottish nation grew out of several distinct ethnic groups. The Picts seem to have inhabited the Highland area since time immemorial. The Scots themselves were immigrants from Ireland in the 6th century or thereabouts. What is now southwestern Scotland survived as a Celtic kingdom until the 13th century, while southeastern Scotland was (whisper it) ethnically English and was absorbed rather earlier than were the Celts.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

Rupert Matthews: CRB checks are dangerous and put children at risk

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

I do not doubt that the whole apparatus of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks and the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) is viewed by many as being essential to protecting our children from sexual predators. I disagree. I think that the way these rules are being used is actually having the opposite effect – it is putting our children at more risk than they would otherwise be.

Not that the CRB process was borught in to protect children or vulnerable adults. It is often forgotten that a prime purpose of the CRB process was always to reduce the risk of organisations (most of them state bodies) being sued if they employed convicted criminals who then went on to abuse persons in their care. The politicians may have spun the story that they wanted to block such persons having access to the vulnerable, but the motivation had come from a number of compensation claims and fears of the growing compensation culture.

The idea was that in the unfortunate instance of a child being abused when in state care, the organisation could fend off any compensation claim by stating that they had followed the CRB process. In other words their response would be “yes, your child was in our care, but it is not our fault as we ticked the right boxes”.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party last year.

I do not doubt that the whole apparatus of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks and the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) is viewed by many as being essential to protecting our children from sexual predators. I disagree. I think that the way these rules are being used is actually having the opposite effect – it is putting our children at more risk than they would otherwise be.

Not that the CRB process was borught in to protect children or vulnerable adults. It is often forgotten that a prime purpose of the CRB process was always to reduce the risk of organisations (most of them state bodies) being sued if they employed convicted criminals who then went on to abuse persons in their care. The politicians may have spun the story that they wanted to block such persons having access to the vulnerable, but the motivation had come from a number of compensation claims and fears of the growing compensation culture.

The idea was that in the unfortunate instance of a child being abused when in state care, the organisation could fend off any compensation claim by stating that they had followed the CRB process. In other words their response would be “yes, your child was in our care, but it is not our fault as we ticked the right boxes”.

Rupert Matthews: Does the EU deserve to be branded the EUSSR?

Rupert Matthews is a freelance writer who has had over 150 books published, mostly on historical subjects. He was recently one of the MEP candidates in the East Midlands for the Conservative Party. Here he expands on a subject raised last month by Tim Montgomerie.

Over the past few weeks there have been some postings on ConHome, and elsewhere, that have referred to the European Union not as the EU but as the EUSSR. The use of the term was denounced by some and defended by others.

So in an idle moment I thought I would compare the two states to see if the tag was justified.

At first glance, of course, there are both similarities and differences. The EU is and the USSR was a multi-national conglomeration of states. On the other hand the EU has no counterpart of the NKVD or KGB that goes around murdering hundreds of thousands of people without trial.

It came as something of a surprise to me when I started reading the Constitution of the USSR that it was amazingly democratic. The citizens of the USSR were granted the right to freedom of speech, to freedom of assembly and to freedom of relgion and the freedom of the press was guranteed. All elections were on the basis of universal suffrage and all votes were by secret ballot. Not only that but the Constitution granted a number of rights not generally known elsewhere – such as the right to work, the right to artistic integrity, the right to housing, the right to health care and the right to enjoy national culture.

Moreover, all positions in the government structure were democratically elected. There was a well-defined balance of powers between the member states and the Union which gave wide ranging and impressive powers and freedoms to the states. The institutions of the central Union were set up and their powers described, all of them most democratic.

Rupert Matthews: When it comes to the seemingly innocuous matter of recycling, we are now living in a tyrannical state

Rupert Matthews is a freelance historian who has had over 150 books published and was recently one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands. You can read more about him on his website.

When the state serves the people, that is democracy. When the people serve the state, that is tyranny.

We like to think that we live in a democracy, but in an increasing number of ways we do not. We live in a tyranny. Not that anyone calls it by that name, partly because they dare not and partly because it is not recognised for what it is. The slippery slope by which a society moves to have a tyrannical state is gradual and slow – and very often the motives are the very best and most noble.

Take the seemingly innocuous matter of recycling. There was a time when everybody recycled everything that they possibly could for the simple reason that materials were relatively expensive and labour was relatively cheap. For this reason lemonade bottles had a deposit on them. When a person bought a bottle of lemonade they paid the deposit, and got it back when the empty bottle was returned. The bottle was then taken away to be washed, refilled and used again. Some of us still return milk bottles to the doorstep for the milkman to take away and reuse, time and time again.

Around the house recycling went on the whole time. Used string was detangled, knotted together and used again. Yesterday’s newspapers were carefully twisted into faggots to light tomorrow’s coal fires. School uniforms were patched up and passed on to a younger sibling.

Rupert Matthews is a freelance historian who has had over 150 books published and was recently one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands. You can read more about him on his website.

Rupert Matthews: Where is the RAF going?

Rupert Matthews is a freelance historian who has had over 150 books published and was recently one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands. You can read more about him on his website.

Coverage of our armed forces has recently been dominated by the problems of overstretch affecting the army – and the lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles that is making their job more difficult and more costly. But the army is not alone in Afghanistan – the RAF is there too.

The deployment, Operation Herrick, sees the RAF’s Harrier GR7s alternating with Tornado GR4s in ground attack roles, plus a host of support and supply missions flow by other aircraft. The staff out there have a tough, gruelling task ahead of them. The RAF is primarily concerned with supporting the army – and usually that involves ground attack missions. For this the RAF has two main weapons: bomb and rocket. The bombs are usually laser guided, free fall bombs that can be dropped with pin point precision and deliver enough explosive power to destroy the sort of low-tech targets encountered in Afghanistan. After all the Taliban don’t build bunkers of steel and concrete.

Rather more popular than the bombs are the CRV7 rockets. These are not noticeably more accurate or powerful than bombs, but they do streak across the sky with an impressive volume of noise while emitting a great display of sparks and smoke. I’m told that the firing of these rockets “scares the turbans off” the Taliban. They certainly do a lot to raise the morale of our soldiers on the ground.

Rupert Matthews: UKIP is out of its depth as a political party and its MEPs fail to represent the British people

Rupert Matthews is one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region and a freelance historian who has had over 150 books published. This is the final in a series of articles in the run-up to June's European elections examining the European policies of the Conservative Party's political opponents. He has already considered the European policies of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was founded in the aftermath of the Maastricht Treaty debacle. The main policy of UKIP toward the EU remains that Britain should withdraw as soon as possible. Until such time as UKIP forms the British Government, they will not be able to put this main policy into operation. In the meantime, UKIP needs to get on with the task of representing the people - and it must be said that it has not done a very good job of this.

In December 2008 the EU Parliament was debating a move to cut the administrative burdens on small businesses – UKIP MEPs abstained. Three months earlier the EU Parliament was looking at regulations that would have ‘named and shamed’ countries that did not open up their markets to British firms – UKIP voted against. In October, UKIP MEPs voted against a resolution calling for a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of the World Trade talks. This is not some recent aberration. In September 2005, UKIP votes were crucial in seeing the EU Parliament pass a bizarre health and safety rule make employers responsible for monitoring workers’ exposure to sunlight [the infamous ‘builder’s bum’ regulation, aka the ‘barmaid’s blouse’ regulation].

Even on a policy that is supposedly dear to UKIP’s heart they can get it wrong. The plight of British fishermen has long been a key plank of UKIP leaflets and campaigning. Yet in February 2006 they voted to grind British fishermen down even further. Spanish and French MEPs launched an attempt to scrap the protected status of the Shetland Box (a key marine conservative area open to British vessels under strict rules), which would have had the effect of letting the vast Spanish fishing fleet to hoover up the area.

Rupert Matthews: Examining our opponents' European policies - the Liberal Democrats

Rupert Matthews is one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region and a freelance historian who has had over 150 books published. This is the second in a series of articles we will be publishing in the run-up to June's European elections in which he will examine the European policies of the Conservative Party's political opponents. He considered Labour's European policies here.

The Lib Dems have long had a reputation as being the most pro-EU of all the political parties in Britain. The reputation is well deserved for they have consistently been mute when it comes to criticising scandals in Brussels, but loud on cheerleading for the supposed benefits of the EU and its ‘ever closer union’.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that they have been loudly in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (EU Constitution). When the EU Constitution came up in the European Parliament the Lib Dem MEPs voted in favour of it. When the Lisbon Treaty came before the EU Parliament in July 2007, they voted in favour of it again. But this is not enough for them. The Lib Dem MEPs voted in favour of an amendment to show “firm resolve to put forward, after the 2009 elections, new proposals on a further constitutional settlement for the Union, in accordance with the clause on treaty revision.”

They have been gratifyingly candid on the similarity between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty. Chris Davies MEP wrote on his website: “I think we should be honest in admitting that the difference between the two is minimal. Eurosceptics will claim that EU governments keep coming back time and again until they get what they want. I never dreamt that our governments would be as cynical as they have been. But I’m not sorry. I supported the Constitutional Treaty and I support the Reform [Lisbon] Treaty.”

Rupert Matthews: Examining our opponents' European policies - Labour

Rupert Matthews is one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region and a freelance historian who has had over 150 books published. This is the first in a series of articles we will be publishing over the coming weeks in the run-up to June's European elections in which he will examine the European policies of the Conservative Party's political opponents.

With the European Elections now only three months away all the political parties will be busily drafting – and no doubt redrafting more than once – their manifestos for those elections. No doubt there will be plenty of fine words and worthy ambitions set out in those manifestos, but it might be instructive to have a quick look at the recent policies and actions of the other parties regarding the European Union. That should give us a clearer idea of what they really think than will the shiny new manifestos. I shall start with Labour.

In the past, Labour’s policy regarding the EU has famously flopped about between extremes. Labour has both advocated outright withdrawal from the EU and vociferously criticised Conservative governments for not going along with everything wanted by Brussels. Since getting into power in Britain in 1997, however, Labour policy on the EU has settled down a bit.

The best way to describe Labour policy toward the EU over the past 11 years would be that they can’t see the wood for the trees. Consistently, Labour ministers - and prime ministers - have got themselves bogged down in detailed horse-trading over individual regulations, directives and rules. They have trumpeted their successes in the little things, but have generally remained silent – or worse made catastrophic mistakes – when it comes to the bigger picture.

Rupert Matthews: What would happen if Britain tried to leave the EU? (Part II of II)

Rupert Matthews is a freelance historian and is currently one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region. If you are on Facebook, you could join his group “Rupert Matthews for East Midlands MEP”.

In my first article on this subject, yesterday, I outlined the similarities between the position of the states of the USA in the 1850s and the states of the EU in 2009. As I showed, the legal and constitutional debate over whether a state could legally secede from the USA, and how it should do so, seem strangely similar to those being held today regarding Britain’s position in the EU.

But the Treaty of Lisbon (aka EU constitution) would change things if it ever comes into force. Again the parallels with the situation in the USA in the mid-19th century are striking – and ominously instructive.

In 1861 seven states passed acts of secession. The Union government led by President Abraham Lincoln refused to accept these acts and maintained that the states remained part of the USA. Lincoln ordered the arrest as traitors of those involved in the secession.

But Lincoln faced a legal impasse. The enforcement of law and order was a function of the states. At this date there was no Union-wide police force. All Lincoln could do was order the governments of the seceding states to arrest the ‘traitors’.  This they refused to do on the grounds that they were now independent and so did not need to obey orders from the Union President –and anyway the men were patriots of their states, not traitors to the Union.

Rupert Matthews: What would happen if Britain tried to leave the EU? (Part I of II)

Rupert Matthews is a freelance historian and is currently one of the MEP candidates for the Conservative Party in the East Midlands Region. If you are on Facebook, you could join his group “Rupert Matthews for East Midlands MEP”.

In recent months I have been looking at the build up to the American Civil War and have been struck by the fact that the political and constitutional debates that took place in the USA in the 1850s are strikingly similar to those that I have been hearing recently in this country.

That set me pondering on the question: Would Britain be allowed to leave the EU?

The similarities between the constitutional position of the states of the USA in the 1850s and that of the states of the EU 160 years later are striking. The United States of America was formed by a number of sovereign and independent states which formed a supranational authority which was intended to have a loose - and often poorly defined - authority over the states. In the years that followed, the USA admitted new states while the economies and political outlooks of the existing states diverged. The US supreme court consistently passed rulings that saw the power of the Union government enhanced over that of the states. The EU has had a similar history.

By the later 1850s it was clear that the industrial states, which formed a majority, were going to use their power within the structures of the Union to enforce their will on the agrarian minority. This was caricatured by the industrialists as a dispute over slavery (and is often still viewed in such terms), but there was more to it than that.