Since when did the EU become Europe? In today’s papers, we read that German politicians are telling Britain that we must play our part to save “Europe”. This, surely, is an opportunity for David Cameron to remind the Germans (and French, too, for that matter) that Britain has already saved Europe once in living memory and the EU is simply an organisation representing 27 European nations.
The present woes affecting the EU are the direct consequence of the organisation’s ill-conceived determination to lock 17 of these states into an illogical and unworkable monetary union. Any financial contribution by the UK to a Eurozone bail-out would simply involve throwing good money after bad.
Now, having got that off my chest, let’s look at what’s happening in the Eurozone. Last week, Angela Merkel said she was determined to pursue closer European political union “step-by-step”. We’ve witnessed step one: the ruthless regime changes imposed on Greece and Italy, where democratically-elected leaders were replaced with unelected technocrats loyal to the EU. So what’s step two?
My guess is that the EU will fairly soon propose a treaty change that demands fiscal union within the Eurozone. This will radically affect the national sovereignty of the member countries. Without the power to determine their own tax rates or spending programmes, Eurozone governments will become – in Norman Tebbitt’s words – no more than rate-capped local councils. And guess where the tax and spend policies will originate? Berlin, of course. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The British Government is worried that our exclusion from this integrated inner-core will weaken our influence in the EU. While one might fairly ask what influence? we actually have a fairly strong hand, if we play it wisely.
For a start, we are the second largest contributor to the EU coffers (after Germany), so can demand attention (he who pays the piper etc); secondly, we are a net importer of European goods. So, being beastly to the Brits is not a good way to promote trade; and, thirdly, British armed forces provide a major component of the putative European army. In short, the EU needs us. So let’s leverage that to our advantage. Over to you Dave.

More than enough has probably been written about Rupert Murdoch and his empire. But, since most of it has been unbalanced vitriol, I’m going to add my two ha-pence worth anyway.  I am proud to have worked for Murdoch in Sydney for a while as a senior sub-editor on his flagship national daily, The Australian.  This paper was - and still is – a quality publication by any yardstick and is, arguably, the best newspaper in Australia. Its quality is undoubtedly due to the succession of first class editors it has had as well as the journalists it employs, but credit has to go to Rupert Murdoch who launched it back in the 1960s and has supported financially ever since, even though I don’t think it has ever made a penny profit.

Which brings me to his track record in the UK.  As other commentators – notably James Delingpole and William Shawcross in The Spectator – have already observed, Murdoch has had a hugely beneficial impact on the British media: He saved The Sun, broke the stranglehold of the print unions, has subsidised The Times and patiently invested millions of pounds in BSkyB before it started making profits.

So why is he so loathed by the BBC, the Guardianistas and other holier-than-thou liberals? I think the answer must be because he and his publications oppose virtually everything they hold dear: the EU, regulation, immigration, multiculturalism, big government et al.  That doesn’t make Murdoch right but his titles have been highly effective at articulating an alternative view to that of what Delingpole calls the “smug, metropolitan bien-pensants who run the BBC”.  And I think smug is exactly the right word – particularly with regard The Guardian.   While it has been throwing up its hands in horror at the illegal hacking of voicemails, how does it think it got hold of the Wikileaks material? Quite simply the paper was handling stolen goods.  And then it put people’s lives at risk by publishing the information. 

I am not trying to exonerate the News of the World journalists who indulged in hacking.  They broke the law and deserve to be punished.  But I think it is fair to ask why everyone has decided to make a fuss about it now.  Certain journalists have been obtaining information illegally for decades and probably much longer.  And it’s been common knowledge.  We all knew that the Squidgy tapes were obtained illicitly and that private detectives were paid to rummage through people’s dustbins in search of information.  But I don’t recall MPs demanding an inquiry then.   So what’s changed – apart from Rupert Murdoch deciding to ditch Gordon Brown and support Cameron?

There is a powerful stench of hypocrisy pervading this whole witch hunt.  It is completely beside the point to argue that Murdoch was too powerful and needed to be brought to heel or that his tabloids were/are trash.  It was Blair, Mandelson and Alistair Campbell who fed the illusion of News International being the Westminster power broker, by courting Murdoch and his editors.  But the truth is that newspapers do not influence significantly the results of elections – Murdoch’s skill has been to identify the way the wind is blowing and then support the winning side.  Thus in 2010, the Sun supported Cameron in London but in Scotland it supported Labour.

Rupert Murdoch has never claimed to be a nice man (although many of those who have worked closely with him like him enormously and his PA has been with him for 50 years), but he is running a business empire not standing for parliament. 
The recent behaviour by some MPs in their aggressive cross-examination of James Murdoch has been repugnant. Tom Watson, in particular, was totally out of order in calling Murdoch junior a Mafia leader. I’m afraid the publicity generated by this business has gone to their heads. Perhaps we could stop televising select committee hearings. That might discourage some of the more puerile grandstanding.