Courtesy of my commenter Tom Tom, yet another link to peruse - and one well worth a read, which begins:
"America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial."
It is not being intimated that the UK has two budgets, but it does raise the question just what, exactly, is done and takes place in our name and on our supposed behalf by our governments and their ALMOs? Just how much do we not know, or are not told?
The question is not asked in respect of decisions that may be taken to negate a military threat to our country, but is asked in respect of national policy (or what is presented to us as national policy by our governments) such as, for instance, transport. Regular readers will be aware that I have posted previously here, here and even way back here, about the EU Trans-European Network - Transport (TEN-T) and HS2 but had been unable to link the two together - until now that is.
I have managed to unearth a consultation document issued by Andrew Price, Trans-European Network Policy and Programme Europe, International and Better Regulation Division, Department for Transport dated 27th July 2010, entitled European Commission Consultation on the future Trans-European Network – Transport (TEN-T) Policy. If anything showed that any UK government is not fully in control of our transport plans, point 2 (page 1) of the overview confirms this:
"The Commission is seeking views about the methodology for reviewing the current TEN-T programme, its policy objectives and the TEN-T financing instruments. The UK consultation enclosed in this letter incorporates the issues raised by the Commission together with specific questions which are solely relevant to the future UK TEN-T network."
but I digress.
Reference to the previous links shows the TEN-T map of the envisaged transport network and the section with which we are most concerned about is the proposed network linking Northern Ireland to the Continent. HS2 has always been presented by the Coalition as a British idea and has never made any reference to EU requirements. Yet on page 12 of the Consultation Paper, amongst the Consultees is none other than HS2 - which begs the question why, if HS2 is not a requirement of the TEN-T envisaged network, would they be consulted? Page 31 of the Consultation Paper helpfully shows the UK TEN-T routes and the following page states:
"The high-speed rail network, whether using current or new technology, shall comprise:And HS2 is necessary for the good of Britain? Yeah, right.........................
specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h;
specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h;
specially upgraded high-speed lines or lines specially built for high speed and connected to the high-speed rail network which have special features as a result of topographical or environmental, relief or town-planning constraints, on which speed must be adapted individually."
7 comments:
Well, well. I always assumed HS2 was part of the TEN-T project - Cameron wouldn't dare admit that though. It's bad enough that the line would go through CONservative heartlands without mentioning that it's the EU that is demanding it.
CONservative MPs are already going to take a massive hit if the proposal goes ahead; it if goes ahead because the EU insists, a very large number of Conservative voters are going to become ex-Conservative voters.
Why don't you disseminate this piece of information to all the local newspapers along the proposed route?
DD99: Unfortunately the sheep have limited vision whilst ignoring what is visible under their noses. I agree there will be some defectors but not enough, I dont feel, to make much difference.
Funny how Stuttgart 21 is a big protest movement against a phenomenally expensive rail project in Stuttgart but not a whiff of it in our media
If I understand you correctly, you appear to be claiming that building HS2 is all part of a pan-European master plan. I don't buy that. "Brussels" couldn't care less whether we do or don't build HS2. That choice is ours. However if we do decide to build it then it should be built to common European standards, so that it could form part of a wider network. I don't see any problem in that. I see no evidence of "Brussels" exterting pressure on the UK one way or the other.
Happy Easter by the way.
g: It is on the TEN-T 'map' - it provides their 'highway' from N. Ireland through Manchester, B'ham and down to London and over to Harwich, onwards to the continent.
Plus, I repeat if HS2 was not part of the TEN-T programme, why is it a 'consultee' of the government paper?
As a matter of interest the A14 roadworks are also part of the TEN-T programme and I cannot find any acceptance of that on any Government website either.
Sorry, but you will have to do better than that, argument-wise, than you have managed so far.
Well the existing routes would form the TEN-T network. If a better, more modern route were to be provided then obviously that would take over. I don't claim that HS2 is not (or would not be) part of the TEN-T programme, but rather that the TEN-T programme does not have any influence over the existence or otherwise of HS2. I think you are looking at two separate areas and concluding cause-and-effect because it suits your anti-European conspiracy theory.
g: Sorry but you are wrong about the existing routes. TEN-T specifies high-speed routes and we don't have any - ergo we have to supply same.
You need to read my other posts on this subject and also research the TEN-T website and read all their material.
Post a Comment