Hannan twists the facts – again

by Sam Ashworth-Hayes

Britain is paying through the nose for its membership of the EU, and is having to bail out the eurozone to boot. That’s if you believe Daniel Hannan, the eurosceptic MEP.

Luckily for us, the claims in Hannan’s latest piece in The Telegraph are misleading.

Take first this contention: “… the £350 million that Britain sends to Brussels each week”

It is true that Britain’s notional contribution to the EU was £17.8 billion (page 14) in 2015, or around £340 million a week. However, the UK receives a £4.9 billion rebate (page 14) in the form of a reduction to its EU budget contributions. Margaret Thatcher fought hard to secure this when she was prime minister.

We questioned Hannan by email why he had not deducted the rebate. His reply was: “It’s normal to count the gross rather than the net contribution”. But the UK never sends (page 34, A.10.4) the notional amount to Brussels; the rebate is deducted first. The gross amount we actually “sent” to the EU in 2015 was £12.9 billion, or around £250 million a week.

But even using this £250 million figure would be misleading, if it was intended to suggest Britain would save that much by leaving the EU. This is partly because the EU also sent the government £4.4 billion (page 14) last year to spend in the UK, mainly on farming and regional aid. It also gives money directly to the private sector – in particular for research. In 2013, the last date for which the government has published figures, this amounted to £1.4 billion (page 14, 3.7). Finally, we are committed to spend 0.7% of our national income on official aid for developing countries. When we calculate our total spending, we include our share of EU aid (£816 million in 2014).

If we left the EU and maintained our support for agriculture, the regions, science and developing countries, we would only save around £6.3billion, or £120 million a week – or less than £2 per person per week. And that’s before taking account of any money we’d probably still have to pay the EU if we wanted to have privileged access to its market, as Norway does.

Now look at another of Hannan’s contentions: David Cameron “was obliged to pledge £850 million to bail out Greece. And then, three months after that, he was obliged to pay the balance of the £1.7 billion ‘prosperity surcharge’.”

It is true that Greece received a loan from an EU fund, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, in July 2015. But a deal was done which meant that non-eurozone members would be fully compensated (see para 5.15) in the event that Greece did not repay its loan. They were provided with collateral to guarantee this, and a law was passed ensuring the same treatment (see Article 1) if a similar situation arose in future. Hannan’s response was: “That’s why I said ‘pledge’ not ‘pay’”. Given that Britain was never on the hook for any risk, Hannan is playing with words.

As for the £1.7 billion “prosperity surcharge”, the UK’s rebate also applied to this. As a result, the actual sum demanded was £850 million (page 5, para 9). What is more, this payment wasn’t linked to the euro crisis. Hannan’s reply was: “I never claimed that the prosperity surcharge was linked the the euro bailout. They were two separate things.” However, by mentioning it in virtually the same breath as the bailout to Greece, Hannan gave the impression that it was linked to the euro crisis.

This isn’t the first time Hannan has been wayward with his facts. This blog pointed out misleading statements he made in October. He has since corrected them, albeit only partially. We hope he corrects his latest errors too.

Sam Ashworth-Hayes is a journalist at InFacts, a new enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to stay in the EU. This article is being published here because the InFacts website is still under construction

Edited by Hugo Dixon, InFacts editor-in-chief

 

MPs shouldn’t greenlight Cameron to bomb Syria

Unless David Cameron comes up with better reasons for bombing Islamic State in Syria, MPs should refuse to give him the green light to do so.

The main weakness in the British PM’s case is that it does not show how bombing Islamic State would advance the peace process in Syria – which Cameron acknowledges is the priority. Unless the non-Islamic State forces stop fighting one another, there’s precious little chance of getting a ground force together that can exterminate the jihadists. Any UK military intervention, therefore, needs to be judged against the yardstick of whether it will advance the peace process.

Cameron’s failure to address this issue properly in his 24-page memorandum published last week, is therefore, a major lacuna. There are a few bald statements that bombing will help the peace process but no argument. The document also fails to tackle a number of points to the effect that more intensified bombing might actually hinder the peace process.

Cameron does explain how the peace process finally has some legs. After the Paris attacks and the blowing up of a Russian civilian plane over Sinai, the outside powers are now more keen to push Bashar al-Assad and the “moderate” rebels to do a deal – although Turkey’s downing of a Russian military jet last week has complicated things. (See my column about the Vienna peace process here). But the prime minister then proceeds to the non sequitur that it is now therefore time to scale up Britain’s military intervention (page 6). Insofar as he has an argument, it is that “degrading and defeating ISIL will help promote a political transition by strengthening the moderate opposition forces.” (page 13)

If bombing the jihadists would strengthen the “moderate” opposition, this would indeed be a good reason for doing so. But Cameron gives so little detail of what type of military action he plans that it is impossible to have any confidence that it will have the desired effect. In the entire document, there’s virtually no information that goes beyond the woolly sentence: “The Coalition’s military strategy aims to stop ISIL’s advance through the air campaign, to strike them in their heartland and to put them under pressure by continuing to degrade and dismantle their economic and military capability.” (Page 8) This isn’t an adequate basis for going to war.

What’s more there are four reasons to worry about air strikes.

First, intensified bombing will kill more innocent civilians. Not only will this be morally dubious, it will fuel Islamic State propaganda that it alone is the defender of Sunni Muslims against Crusaders and infidels. If so, it could be counterproductive, increasing support for the jihadists both inside Syria and elsewhere (including among radicalised Muslims in Britain).

Cameron doesn’t directly address this issue in his memo, although he does say that the RAF’s Brimstone missile “enables us to strike accurately with low collateral damage” (page 24). If British bombing was merely going to displace air strikes undertaken by less accurate partners, it might lead to fewer civilian deaths. However, since the intention is to step up the military action, collateral damage will rise.

In this context, it is important to ask whether the Syrian people want us to bomb them. This excellent report by The Observer giving the views of people who have fled Islamic State oppression in its capital Raqqa suggests that many don’t.

Second, intensified bombing may help Assad more than it helps the so-called moderate rebels. If this is so, the Syrian government will be under less pressure to cut a deal with the moderates and the peace process will be undermined. In that scenario, Assad would continue to oppress the Sunnis and more of these would be drawn to jihadism – whether the Islamic State or some other, possibly new variety.

It is possible to imagine some sorts of bombing that could help the “moderate” rebels — for example, if an Islamic State unit was about to advance on a rebel position and the RAF was able to wipe it out. But the impact of other types of bombing could be counterproductive — say if the Coalition could severely weaken Islamic State in Raqqa, and Assad ground troops, with the support of Russian air power, were able to finish the job.

What makes bombing so dubious as a tactic is that the Coalition lacks reliable ground troops. Britain, France and America don’t want to put boots on the ground themselves. But the “moderate” Syrians are a mishmash. Cameron says there are 70,000 of them. But most are not in a position to take territory in Islamic State’s heartland. Many are in southern Syria, a completely different part of the country. Another chunk are Kurds, who would not be welcome in Sunni Arab areas. Even Cameron, after two and a half pages of huffing and puffing, finally admits that “without transition, it will continue to be difficult to generate a Sunni force able to fight ISIL and hold ground in Eastern Syria”. (page 20) This grudging admission raises questions about the wisdom of the whole bombing escapade.

What’s more, nowhere in Cameron’s document does he say that the “moderate” rebels want us to bomb the jihadists. The prime minister’s case would be a lot stronger if he could produce some genuine moderates who advocate bombing.

Third, by joining the bombing in Syria, Britain will be seen by some Sunnis as aligning itself with Assad. Cameron, of course, says that Assad needs to go. But Syrians could easily be forgiven for thinking that Britain will be softening its line on Assad if it bombs the jihadists but leaves the brute in Damascus, who bears the lion’s share of responsibility for Syria’s civil war, unscathed.

There is a genuine risk of Britain collaborating with Assad via a chain reaction. After all, part of Cameron’s justification for attacking Islamic State is to help our ally France post the Paris attacks. Meanwhile, Francois Hollande has just foolishly agreed to swap intelligence with Vladimir Putin – and Russia’s tsar is allied with Assad in attempting to crush the “moderate” rebels.

Islamic State will again exploit such collaboration by chain reaction to argue that it alone can defend Sunnis against Crusaders. This is another way that bombing could be counterproductive.

Fourth, Cameron has not produced a long-term plan for helping Syria after the bombing stops. In the absence of this, the country could continue its downward spiral. Even if Islamic State were somehow defeated, other jihadists could spring up to fill the gap. Britain’s invasion of Iraq and military intervention in Libya show the dangers of not having a well thought through post-conflict plan.

Cameron’s failure to address this issue properly is especially culpable given his responsibility for the Libyan fiasco. True, the prime minister does say that “planning and preparation for helping to stability post-ISIL Syria is a priority”. He also says that a Syrian conference being held in London in February 2016 will be an opportunity to focus on this (page 22). But so far this doesn’t amount to anything close to a plan. By advocating military action before there’s a rebuild strategy, Cameron is putting the cart before the horse.

The prime minister has another argument for joining the bombing of Islamic State in Syria: that Britain itself faces a threat and we should therefore do our fair share to combat the jihadists. But there are several problems with this argument.

One is that, while the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK is real, they should not be exaggerated. According to Cameron, seven plots “linked to” or “inspired by” Islamic State have been foiled in the past year (page 3). Another problem is that bombing the jihadists will probably increase the risk of terrorist attacks in Britain, at least in the short term. Cameron doesn’t answer this point, merely saying the threat is “already very high” (page 9). The final objection is to Cameron’s notion of doing our fair share. If bombing is a good idea, Britain should definitely do its fair share. But that only works as an argument if bombing is a good idea in the first place.

In conclusion, Cameron hasn’t made the case for Britain to bomb Islamic State in Syria. To do so, he needs to produce a proper joined up strategy showing how military action will advance the peace process. He needs to give more detail of the intervention that is envisaged, while getting support from genuinely moderate rebels as well as Syrian civilians for what he plans. He also needs to come up with a good post-conflict plan. Until and unless he does that, MPs shouldn’t authorise bombing.

Questions Cameron must answer before bombing

The drumbeats of war are getting louder. David Cameron wants to join the US and France in bombing Islamic State in Syria. The Paris attacks may seem to increase the case for doing so. But before agreeing to Cameron’s request, MPs need to ask the following questions.

1. What would UK bombing add any benefit to the bombing America and France are already doing?

The allies don’t seem to have many good targets to hit. Would the RAF’s involvement help the allies do something they can’t do now? Or is it rather going to be a case of us taking some of the load from others?

2. How would we avoid killing innocent civilians?

So far the US and French bombing has been fairly accurate. That’s not so with the Russian attacks. If we end up killing innocent civilians, we will give Islamic State a propaganda boost. That could be counterproductive.

3. Would our bombing enhance or reduce the chances of peace between the Syrian government and the non Islamic State rebels?

It is vital not to harm the peace prospects because that is the only sustainable way of crushing jihadism. Much depends on how we relate to Assad. If we do anything that seems like we are siding with him, we could drive more Sunni rebels into Islamic State’s arms. That would be counterproductive. On the other hand, if our intervention can harm Islamic State’s ability to attack other Sunni rebels, this could be helpful as they will see we are supporting them.

4. Do we have a strategy for rebuilding Syria after we’ve bombed it?

Or are we just going to wash our hands of what will inevitably be chaos, as Cameron did after his Libyan bombing escapade?

5. What’s the legal justification – if there is one?

If we have a good ethical and strategic case, we don’t need a legal justification. But it would certainly be desirable.

Without good answers to these questions, MPs shouldn’t back bombing.

What Islamic State wants – an overreaction

Islamic State wants the West to overreact to the Paris attacks in a way that convinces more and more Sunnis that it is their only defender against infidels. This is exactly what happened after 9/11 when an attack on Afghanistan mutated into the invasion of Iraq, helping create the current nightmare in the Middle East.

More specifically, Islamic State will want anything that plays into their victim narrative. For example:

• Bombs that kill civilians, especially women and children
• The West to nuzzle up to President Bashar al-Assad, making it look like it’s siding with Shiites in a sectarian battle against Sunnis
• Anti-Muslim rhetoric by Western politicians
• Abuse of Muslims’ human rights in Europe

There are already signs that the West is being tempted to do all these things. If it does, Islamic State will exploit it mercilessly in its propaganda – potentially gathering extra recruits and sympathy among Sunnis. The West must not fall into the trap.

The West, of course, must not under-react any more than overreact. It needs to defend itself. It will have to tighten up security. But it must do so wisely, while adhering to its values of tolerance, rule of law and non-discrimination.

Responding to Paris attacks

Francois Hollande says France must take “appropriate action” following Paris attacks. But what action is appropriate? Nicholas Sarkozy, his predecessor, has gone further, calling for “total” war.

France/West are likely to be torn between fury (wanting to smash IS) and fear of reprisals. Neither is good. The right response has to be ethical, strategically smart – and ideally legal.

Needs to focus on two clear goals: a) stop terrorist attacks in France/West b) stop Syrian war

Not easy to pursue both goals simultaneously, at least in short run, as fighting IS may lead to more attacks. The West shouldn’t shirk from doing what is right through fear of reprisals. But should understand what it is letting itself in for.

Legality

Legal justification not 100% required for Western intervention in Syria. But highly desirable.

US/French bombing of IS in Syria to date legally dubious. So was drone attack on Jihadi John. By contrast, bombing IS in Iraq – eg operation to help Kurds retake Sinjar – is legal because Baghdad has asked for our help.

Ethics

France may be able to justify smashing IS on grounds of self-defence, though IS says it acted because France already attacking it. The difference is Western attacks have tried to pinpoint combatants/hit infrastructure, while IS targeted innocents.

There are two other potential justifications for military intervention: protect Syrians & stop refugee flows destabilising region.

Whatever justification, any intervention needs to be proportionate and have reasonable prospect of getting good results.

Proportionality/reasonable prospects

Important not to lose sight of fact that Assad is prime culprit for Syria’s civil war. Western/French response shouldn’t strengthen Assad – or be seen as taking Shia side in battle against Sunnis

Top priority is to get anti-IS national unity government for Syria that phases Assad out of picture. If that could be achieved (massive IF) & new govt asked for aid, West should help crush IS in Syria

For this to happen, Russia & US have to agree on how to handle Assad. Key focus of Vienna talks. The best hope is post-Sinai Russia sees it can’t solve Syria crisis on own/needs to work with other power

In absence of agreement on Assad, ramping up Western military intervention in Syria may backfire.

West likes aerial bombing because its armed forces aren’t at much risk. This can be effective against troops on move and infrastructure. But bombing built-up areas often kills innocents. The rage it causes can help IS gain more recruits.

Air attacks coordinated with ground troops smarter because there’s chance of taking strategic territory. This has been used to good effect in Sinjar with Kurds providing ground troops. US may do same with Kurd/Arab forces in Raqqa, Syria.

Such operations also don’t play into narrative that West is supporting Shia as it is helping Sunnis vs IS. But the limited number of pro-West ground troops means it will be tough for Hollande to find ways of intervening that do more good than harm.

European front

This is an attack on Europe not just on France. Common problem requires common response. French bombing in Syria wasn’t coordinated with rest of EU. Nor has there been much sign of UK coordinating any action it may take.

If EU countries insist on unilateral approaches, there will be division when unity required. The Syrian/terrorism/refugee crises show need for more Europe when it comes to foreign and security policy.

EU membership – cheaper than a pint of beer

Britain’s budget contribution to the European Union works out at £2.50 per person per week. That’s a quarter cheaper than a pint of beer.

Here’s how I get these numbers.

I’m using Britain’s net contribution to the EU (after taking account of the rebate Margaret Thatcher secured for us and the amount of money the EU pays to our farmers, poorer regions, scientists etc). This annual contribution of £8.4 billion I divide by our population of 65 million and then by the 52 weeks of the year. That gives a figure of £2.50.

Then I look at the price of a pint of beer. According to the Good Pub Guide, as quoted in The Telegraph, this is £3.46. Hence our EU membership costs 28% less than a pint of beer.

Hugo Dixon is the author of The In/Out Question: Why Britain should stay in the EU and fight to make it better. Only £2.50 for the Kindle Single, £5 for the paperback.

He is also campaigning to keep Britain in the EU.

Toby Young peddles VoteLeave misinformation

Hannan’s wayward way with facts

Daniel Hannan MEP is one of Britain’s leading eurosceptics. But his arguments are poor and he has a disregard for truth.

Take Hannan’s video on why we should quit the EU, posted on YouTube on Oct 7. The thrust of his argument is that, by joining the EU, Britain abandoned the Commonwealth and other English-speaking markets, while limiting itself to what is now a shrinking part of the world economy. Hannan thinks we’d do better quitting the EU and reclaiming our right to cut our own trade deals as an independent nation.

But we never abandoned the rest of the world and limited ourselves to Europe. Our EU membership never required us to do so. We don’t have to make an either/or choice. We can trade both with the EU and the rest of the world. Germany, for example, does fantastically well as an exporter to China. Meanwhile, there is no appetite among Commonwealth countries to recreate the British Empire. Australia, for one, is urging us to stay in the EU.

If we quit the EU, we’d certainly be free to cut our own trade deals – but we’d lose clout. We’d no longer be part of the world’s largest economic bloc. We’d be negotiating with America (seven times our size) and China (five times as big). We’d also be trying to get a good deal with the rest of the EU, which would be six times larger than us. Without clout, we’d have to abide by its rules without having any vote on what those are – a huge loss of sovereignty.

Hannan’s argument isn’t just weak. It is based on two false facts.

First, Hannan states: “Here’s a scary statistic: in 2006, the EU accounted for 65% of ALL our exports. Today, that figure today has fallen to 45%”. [1 min 33 sec mark]

It might be a scary statistic – if it was true. In fact, the EU accounted for 54% of our exports in 2006, according to the ONS – the source Hannan purports to get his information from. In that year, we exported £211.06bn to the EU and £179.34bn to other countries. What’s more, there was an upward blip in exports to the EU in 2006 as you can see from the table below. It would, therefore, be fairer to use 2005 or 2004 figures in both of which years EU exports accounted for 52% of exports.*

When Jonathan Portes, until recently boss of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, confronted Hannan about this on Twitter on Oct 10, the MEP tweeted a chart that appeared to back up his position but in fact seems to refer to the exports of goods rather than to all exports. Goods are only part of our economy, with services accounting for a large and growing chunk. If Hannan had used the correct statistic, it would have still shown a fall – but it wouldn’t have been so scary.

Now it is quite easy to make such a mistake. But it’s not clear Hannan can say he made an innocent error. He has been peddling this inaccurate statistic for some time, according to Portes – who says he challenged Hannan about this at a briefing for BBC staff that the two attended several months ago and then followed up with an email.

When I contacted Hannan by email, he replied: “If it’s inaccurate, I’ll use new figures, though I’m pretty sure that they will all show a sharp decline.” He didn’t immediately respond to follow-up questions about whether this meant he would actually correct his video and whether he accepted Portes’ version of events.

Second, Hannan says in his video: “According to the IMF, every region of the world is now growing except Europe”. [2 min 10 sec mark] In fact, according to the latest IMF forecast, the EU will grow 1.9% this year. What’s more, two regions are forecast to shrink. The CIS, which includes Russia, is predicted to suffer a 2.7% fall and LatIn America/Caribbean a 0.3% drop. So Hannan’s statement contains a double error.

When I challenged the MEP over this, he replied: “Over the past six years, the eurozone has essentially flatlined – unlike everywhere else.” I pointed out, in a follow-up email, that this is not what he’d said in his video and asked whether he would be correcting it. He hasn’t yet replied.

Hannan has many admirers because of his plausible and articulate manner. But he is either ignorant of key facts or telling fibs. It is doubtful that somebody who gets the facts so wrong on his pet subject deserves admiration.

* The last two sentences of this para were added in an update

** Totally updated version of my book – The In/Out Question: Why Britain should stay in the EU and fight to make it better – has just been published. Much more on politics this time – for example, chapters on Little England (how we’d lose influence globally and perhaps Scotland too, if we quit the EU); and Let People Roam Free (why free movement of people is good, on balance, for Britain if not for absolutely everybody). Perfect antidote to misinformation peddled by OUT campaign. Still only 140 pages. £2.50 for e-book; £5 for physical copy. Please buy, read and SHARE. [Note added Oct 14]

Labour MPs shouldn’t back Syria bombing

More than 50 Labour MPs are to defy Jeremy Corbyn and back Cameron’s plan for military action in Syria according to The Observer . Meanwhile, Jo Cox, a Labour MP, co-authors this column with a Tory MP calling for British forces to help create a safe haven for refugees in Syria.

One problem with backing Cameron’s Syrian plan is that it’s more likely to be about dropping a few bombs on ISIS than creating a safe haven. Although this is a relatively easy thing to do, it will probably do more harm than good. Assad will use it as evidence that the UK is supporting his fight against terrorism and as propaganda to shore up his reign of terror. This is what he did when Obama started bombing ISIS in Syria last year.

If UK now joins the bombing, we’ll also give a propaganda boost to ISIS, which will argue that we are siding with Shia versus Sunni. This will allow it to recruit yet more fighters. Since Obama started bombing, ISIS has got more new fighters than US has killed. Same would probably happen if Cameron piled in. UK would also be even more exposed to terrorist attacks back home.

Creating a safe zone in northern Syria is, of course, a completely different idea. It would be a place of refuge from both Assad and ISIS – and so harder to paint it as siding with the Shia. While the idea is nice in theory, to implement it would need a big air operation & troops on ground – and this is fraught with problems.

Given that there’s no way of getting UN Security Council approval for such an operation – as Assad would object and Putin would back him with his veto – creating a safe haven would have dubious legality under international law. It could still possibly be justified morally using the doctrine of responsibility to protect – viz that the international community has a right to intervene in another country if it is killing or failing to protect its own people. The problem is that it is doubtful the UK/West will have the will to do what is necessary to protect the Syrian people. And we have seen too often how half-cock operations launched for humanitarian reasons (most recently Libya) end in disaster..

Now Putin has launched his own Syria operation, creating safe zone means NATO would have to shoot down Russian jets – not just Assad’s. I doubt we are up for that.

Meanwhile, the only NATO country that might put boots on ground in Syria is Turkey. But Erdogan’s motivation would be more to squish the Syrian Kurds than defeat Assad/ISIS. Giving Erdogan cover to do that wouldn’t just be immoral; it would trigger huge blowback in Turkey, inflaming further relations with its own Kurdish population – just after the terrorist attack on the Ankara peace rally.

It’s understandable that people want to stop Assad’s barrel bombing and ISIS’s barbarity. But military intervention on the cheap isn’t the answer.

OUT campaign’s bogus facts and twisted logic

The OUT campaign launches today with bogus facts and twisted logic. Here’s my quick rebuttal to VoteLeave, one of the two groups vying to be official OUT campaign.

1. OUT campaign uses inaccurate £20bn figure for UK budget contribution to EU. Not only does it “round” £17.9bn up to £20bn, it ignores £5bn rebate and £4.5bn EU money sent back to UK . Our net contribution is £8.4bn.

2. It totally ignores huge benefit UK gets from EU single market. Various estimates put that at 5% of GDP – or £90bn/year – 10x our net contribution to EU budget.

3. Some OUT campaigners say we can stay in single market if we quit EU, just like Norway. But we will then be following all the rules without a vote and will still be paying a budget contribution which we won’t have any say over how to spend.

4. OUT says UK should quit EU because eurozone has high youth unemployment and high debt. But we don’t use euro!!

5. Says UK only has 8% vote in EU. But we actually have 12.6% of votes.

6. OUT campaign argues we need to leave to change our laws and control our taxes. But only 2% of UK government spending goes through EU & 7% of UK laws implement EU laws (and even then it is often just a passing reference)

7. OUT campaign thinks we’ll get better trade deals by quitting EU and relying on WTO membership. But if we do that, we will be negotiating trade deals with much bigger blocs: US 7x as big, EU 6x, China 5x. With less clout, we’ll get worse deals.

8. OUT campaign is bandying around bogus facts without ANY sourcing. This is sloppy and shows contempt to UK voters.

For an antidote to these bogus facts and twisted logic, check out my crisp fact-based book which is bristling with sources The In/Out Question: Why Britain should stay in the EU and fight to make it better. ‪