Greece

From the synopsis of Apocalypse Now:

"During the on-going Vietnam War, Captain Willard is sent on a dangerous mission into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has set himself up as a God among a local tribe."

From 'Acropolis Now':

During the on-going EU war, the Greek people have sent themselves on a dangerous mission to overthrow a renegade EU Troika who have set themselves up as Gods among the local tribe."

Just saying.....................

Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell!

Exhibit 1: Richard North, EU Referendum, quotes Cameron on the subject of maritime safety saying that:

".......if changes need to be made, including on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, of course we will make them."

Exhibit 2: European Commission - Mobility & Transport:


Maritime Safety: Commission requests the United Kingdom to comply with new safety rules and standards for passengers engaged in domestic voyages [IP/12/57]:

"If this Member State fails to inform the Commission within two months of the measures it has taken to ensure full compliance with EU law, the Commission could refer the case to the EU Court of Justice.....The United Kingdom has failed to notify the Commission of all the measures taken to enforce the new Directive although required to do so by 29 June 2011. The United Kingdom has only notified the Commission of partial measures of implementation."

Not maritime. but related:


Driving licences: Commission requests Denmark, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Portugal to adopt measures on driving licences [IP/12/55]

"Directive 2006/126/EC updates Directive 91/439/EC on driving licences, by for example introducing new driving licence categories and a harmonised period of validity of the driving licence document.......Denmark, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Portugal still have not fully transposed this Directive into national law, although they were required to do so by 19 January 2011."

January and June 2011? 2011??? Oops!


One wonders who will get put through the carwash and/or keelhauled? Hammond or Greening? The latter is lucky in that she is 'justin' time to qualify.

Afterthought: The two items quoted above were as a result of news from The Albion Alliance Presents - a site well worth bookmarking!

More Government Initiatives?

The Daily Telegraph reports that Andrew Lansley, who is to give a speech at the Faculty of Public Health, will set out plans to provide extra funding to local authorities who do something to promote and cut down tooth decay in children, reducing the number of times people fall in their own homes and boosting breastfeeding - amongst other 'aims' which include truancy and obesity. Nowhere does there seem to be any acknowledgement, either by Lansley nor Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, of the EU influence in these matters.


Domestic violence is a high priority for the EU, reiterated by the conclusions reached by the EU’s Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council which aimed at achieving “the eradication of violence against women in the EU”.


Breast feeding is also subject in which the EU 'has a view' and has done for some years now with the then European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, David Byrne, in 2004 writing:

"The Blueprint for Action provides a framework for the development of such plans.The Blueprint will be made available to all those Governments, institutions and organizations who are willing to work together for the protection, promotion and support of  breastfeeding. I invite them to use the Blueprint and translate its proposals and recommendations into action."

That 'paper' was later revised in 2008.


Truancy is another area in which the EU has views, ones being 'managed' by Cordis, Community Research and Development Information Service for Science, Research and Development.


Obesity is - guess what - another area in which the EU has views, ones being 'managed' by DG Health and Consumers and the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Page 60 of this document shows just how many 'organisations' in the UK are involved in this field.


Once again we find that what are presented as national policies are no more than our politicians setting out 'frameworks' of their own which in turn comply with 'frameworks' of the EU. In this latest development one can but repeat the words of Richard North, EU Referendum, at the end of this post:

"......those who are the most avid supporters of the EU seem to be those who are also keenest to deny its involvement in so many aspects of our lives."

Really, Mr. Redwood?

John Redwood posts on "The Death of Britain - revisiting old fears", a post in which he repeats the basic question I raised yesterday which was why have a government if it can't govern - but I digress. In his post Redwood writes:

"Some things I feared we prevented. We stopped the UK joining the single currency, despite Mr Blair’s enthusiasm. We stopped changes to the voting system for Westminster, though we have them for other layers of government.  We have checked regional government in England, defeating elected regional government and now starting to cut  back the unelected because it is a needless and unaccountable layer." (Emphasis mine)

So John Redwood believes that regional government in England has been checked? Perhaps, as with HS2, he believes all that he is told? Has he never heard of the Committee of the Regions? It would be worth his while to read this post from Ian Parker-Joseph (PJC Journal-IanPJ on Politics).


Regional government has not been checked; elected regional government may have been defeated but it still remains, being carried out by unelected regional government; and quangos may be being 'cut' (at questionable cost) but that too is a charade as it is just an exercise in moving 'remits'. From that BBC report:

"The NAO said departments had underestimated the cost of transferring functions from the axed public bodies to other parts of Whitehall."

Still, nothing like a little bit of spin is there - even from such a self-proclaimed eurosceptic such as John Redwood.


Just saying.................. 

 

Here's another fine mess you've got us into......

As Laurel and Hardy used to say - well, one of them did.

Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, writes about the case of Victor Akulic - an article on which Richard North, EU Referendum, passes comment. On the same day we are informed that Cameron - aka Dav il Cam - is to 'confront' the judges from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), telling them: "Stop meddling in British justice." - on which again Richard North comments, linking to Autonomous Mind. On the same subject  of ECHR 'rulings' we have the recent decision from the ECHR on the matter of Abu Qatada, yet another decision which shows just how impotent is our supposed government.

It is readily acknowledged that I have been 'banging on' about the defects of our membership of the European Union and all that that entails, but the problems we face are compounded by membership of organisations like the ECHR in which we have no place under the present terms of membership. The plight of our country is further compounded by deficits in our present system of democracy, namely representative democracy, which amounts to democratised dictatorship, in that elected politicians are able to enroll our country in agreements and treaties over which we the people have no voice.

That 'power' which politicians have taken invariably leads them into a situation from which there is no escape - witness membership to the ECHR. It is that 'power' that has allowed our nation to be subsumed into the European Union - and, as with the ECHR, led us to be 'governed' by forces outside our control. All the above begs the question why we allow a government to exist that is unable to govern?

Is it not time that those who controlled the shovels with which they dig an even bigger pit, into which we are forced to fall, had their shovels taken away from them? 

More on TEN-T (Transport)

A 'White Paper' on transport, issued by the EU Commission last March slipped under my radar, however there is no time like the present to rectify that error.


From the Directorate-Generale for Mobility and Transport we are advised:


"The European Expert Group on Future Transport Fuels has published its second report: Infrastructure for Alternative Fuels, from the Introduction of which we learn:

"Transitions in fuel supply infrastructure and vehicles will be needed for all new transport fuels. These transitions may need to be encouraged or mandated throughout all EU Member States and coordinated at the EU level in order to drive the market forward.

Assuming a reduction of at least 60% of GHGs by 2050 with respect to 1990 in the transport sector, improvements in the energy efficiency of transport operations and vehicles will provide a period of several years to evaluate and develop the technologies for alternative fuel systems that will require major transitions in infrastructure and vehicle design. A timely decision on these major transitions can therefore be taken to ensure a long-term cost-effective and sustainable solution that is commensurate with adequate industrial lead-time.

In view of the scope of change required for a low carbon transport system, it would be recommendable to analyse the current regulatory framework and to identify the gaps and level of policy support required to enable this change, particularly with regard to infrastructure for alternative fuels.

There is a current lack of an EU-wide harmonised alternative fuel infrastructure due to differing levels of development in the Member States. Such fragmented development leads to high costs, hampers consumer acceptance, and prevents the economies of scale which the Single Market could provide. A specific strategy on alternative fuel infrastructure at EU level will be necessary for the short and medium term.

Member States have promoted different alternative fuel infrastructures, because they have opted for different priorities in their fuel choices with regard to the implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive and to the allocation of state support. But there is a clear lack of harmonized EU standards within the various types of alternative fuel refuelling equipment and storage systems.

During the last decade, policy actions have mostly addressed fuel and vehicle developments, neglecting an appropriate alternative fuel infrastructure build-up. Funding to build up alternative fuel infrastructure has also been insufficient. The initial costs for market-deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure are generally higher than for petroleum-based fuels due to i.a. the lack of initial economies of scale. Fuel suppliers (i.e. private spending) are investing in alternative fuels even if the revenue from fuel sold is not sufficient to pay back infrastructure and logistics costs.

The recently adopted White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System" announces that the Commission will develop "a sustainable alternative fuels strategy including also the appropriate infrastructure" (Initiative 24) and ensure "guidelines and standards for refuelling infrastructures" (Initiative 26).

Which is all jolly interesting, is it not? Bear with me, it gets better! From the White Paper:


Page 5 (16): Coherence at EU level is vital – a situation where (for example) one Member State opted exclusively for electric cars and another only for biofuels would destroy the concept of free travel across Europe.


Page 5 (19) New transport patterns must emerge, according to which larger volumes of freight and greater numbers of travellers are carried jointly to their destination by the most efficient (combination of) modes. Individual transport is preferably used for the final miles of the journey and performed with clean vehicles. Information technology provides for simpler and more reliable transfers. Transport users pay for the full costs of transport in exchange for less congestion, more information, better service and more safety. (Emphasis mine)


Page 6 (22) In the intermediate distances, new technologies are less mature and modal choices are fewer than in the city. However, this is where EU action can have the most immediate impact (fewer constraints from subsidiarity or international agreements). More resource-efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels are unlikely to achieve on their own the necessary cuts in emissions and they would not solve the problem of congestion. They need to be accompanied by the consolidation of large volumes for transfers over long distances. This implies greater use of buses and coaches, rail and air transport for passengers and, for freight, multimodal solutions relying on waterborne and rail modes for long-hauls. (Emphasis mine)


Page 8 (30) In cities, switching to cleaner transport is facilitated by the lower requirements for vehicle range and higher population density. Public transport choices are more widely available, as well as the option of walking and cycling. Cities suffer most from congestion, poor air quality and noise exposure. Urban transport is responsible for about a quarter of CO2 emissions from transport, and 69% of road accidents occur in cities. The gradual phasing out of ‘conventionally-fuelled’9 vehicles from the urban environment is a major contribution to significant reduction of oil dependence, greenhouse gas emissions and local air and noise pollution. It will have to be complemented by the development of appropriate fuelling/charging infrastructure for new vehicles. (Emphasis mine


Page 8 (31) A higher share of travel by collective transport, combined with minimum service obligations, will allow increasing the density and frequency of service, thereby generating a virtuous circle for public transport modes. Demand management and land-use planning can lower traffic volumes. Facilitating walking and cycling should become an integral part of urban mobility and infrastructure design (Emphasis mine)


Page 8 (32) The use of smaller, lighter and more specialised road passenger vehicles must be encouraged. Large fleets of urban buses, taxis and delivery vans are particularly suitable for the introduction of alternative propulsion systems and fuels. These could make a substantial contribution in reducing the carbon intensity of urban transport while providing a test bed for new technologies and opportunity for early market deployment. Road pricing and the removal of distortions in taxation can also assist in encouraging the use of public transport and the gradual introduction of alternative propulsion. (Emphasis mine)


I could continue, but I believe readers will be able to see that our travel is to be 'conditioned' to the extent of what form of public transport will be available and that which we may use; that we, the public, will be bearing the full cost; that any hope we had 'killed' the introduction of road pricing in this country is now but a dream; that private long-distance journeys may only be allowed at the discretion of the state (which makes a mockery of 'the free movement of people'); that the type of car we may be allowed to purchase will be limited to 'approved models, or else we will have a choice but the larger car will no doubt have a 'tax imposed so as to make it unavailable for the average person, etc etc.


The entire White Paper is well worth reading (in fact I would urge you so to do) because therein will be shown to you exactly that which is in store for every individual in the future, a future being mapped out by the 'elite' - and a choice on which you will not have. It is not illogical to assume that as they impose conditions on how an individual moves around and the methods from which a choice can be made - so this 'control' can be extended to the type of home you have; the food which you can eat; where you may travel; when and if you can smoke or consume alcohol; how many children may be raised, etc etc. 


You think I may be scaremongering? Has the last few years taught you, the public, anything? Nothing is more certain than that our own political elite are 'beavering away'laying the groundwork' for all this to happen. The other thing on which you can be certain is that none of the restrictions to be imposed on 'us' will apply to 'them'.


It is not for nothing the EU has been dubbed the EUSSR!

Fair reporting on fare increase?

That the Daily Mail has been renamed by some bloggers as the Daily Fail/Wail is understandable when considering the poor standard of journalism exhibited by that newspaper*, none more so than in an article today by Ray Massey; one that deals with the fare increases for rail travel due to come into force on 1st January 2012. This article contains the obligatory soundbites from various 'interested' people such as Sophie Allain of the Campaign for Better Transport; Bob Crow of the RMT Union (with whom Ukip seem 'best buddies'- nuff said); and Michael Roberts, chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies.


What is odd about Massey's column is that only last August the same newspaper reported on an EU proposal that railways should be operated on the basis of 'user pays' - on which I posted here** - that report hinting at a 50% increase in rail fares, should the proposal come to fruition. Even though the Mail is a supporter of this country's membership of the European Union one would have thought, in an attempt to be informative, Massey might just have mentioned that earlier report and its contents? Neither, of course, is there any mention that Osborne's deferment of an increase to 3% of the RPI aspect of fare increases may be linked to the fact that not until then is the impending Directive from Brussels expected to be published.


Presumably Massey and the Mail are either ignorant of the 'user pays' principle or decided to play along with their political friends by not mentioning the principle in the first place and that it is nothing new. For example, on that latter point, it was raised back in 1998 by Neil Kinnock when Commissioner for Transport; likewise the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC was based on the same principle.


It is also intriguing that Bob Crow, an avowed anti-EUer, did not attempt to raise this 'user pays' point - or maybe he did and the Mail decided not to print that. One would have thought that at least the Campaign for Better Transport might have mentioned it, but then looking at the graphic for their sources of funding (page 9 of their Annual Review) perhaps not. Unfortunately it was not possible to look at their annual accounts as the link provided does not work (an email has been sent.....). 


As with HS2, where I have shown an EU connection, so there is the same 'connection' where rail fare increases are concerned. That not one politician, nor 'stakeholder' cares to mention these connections can only show that there is indeed a policy in place to hide the truth from the British public. Where the hiding of truth is concerned Dav il Cam should take note that we are not all in it together. Where that practice is concerned, they may be - we in the blogosphere most definitely are not.




* Though tis a tad unfair to single out the Daily Mail when just about every member of the MSM exhibits 'Fail' where journalism is concerned.


** This post contains links to the August Mail article and access to the EU White Paper and other related documentation.

Osborne & Cable - 'Spinmasters Extraordinary'

From Politics Home we learn:

"Vince Cable says he and George Osborne will accept the recommendations of the Vickers Commission on banking in full, with the Government tomorrow launching a package of reforms, including separating banks' retail and investment arms.
Dr Cable told the Andrew Marr Show this morning: “I’m working together with the Chancellor on this; we’ve come to a common view, and we’re going to proceed with it. Moreover, we’re going to get on with it. The legislation is going to be completed within this Parliament. It’s got to be done; we can’t have a position where the big banks are too big to fail.”
Labour's Chuka Umunna said it was "very important" that all the recommendations were implemented, and called for Sir John Vickers to report back in a year on how the implementation was progressing. The Shadow Business Secretary also said the Government should bring forward plans to refer banks to the Competition Commission."

Odd therefore there is no mention that on 20 July 2011, the Commission adopted a legislative package to strengthen the regulation of the banking sector. The proposal replaces the current Capital Requirements Directives (2006/48 and 2006/49) with a Directive and a Regulation and constitutes another major step towards creating a sounder and safer financial system (or so they say!). The directive governs the access to deposit-taking activities while the regulation establishes the prudential requirements institutions need to respect. Neither is there any mention of this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or finally, this.


Osborne is supposedly Chancellor of the Exchequer, while Cable is supposedly Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Spheroids - they are no more than Office Managers implementing decisions taken by the Muscles from Brussels! Yet again we see impending EU legislation being passed off as 'action being taken' by British politicians when, in reality, that is not so.


And still there persists those who maintain that our politicians should not be introduced to their 'reserved lamp post'?


Afterthought: Perhaps when we as a nation do regain our independence, assuming he is still alive we could hire the Muscles from Brussels to wipe out the Muscles from Brussels? Just a thought..........

For what we are about to receive......

Once again courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents comes news of some words by Staffan Nilsson, President of the EESC:

"After the last European Council of 8 and 9 December, the heads of state or government went home to talk to their parliaments. David Cameron told the British House of Commons that he had gone to Brussels with only one intention i.e. "to defend our own interests." But where, I wonder, were our common interests? Where was the European interest, where were the European objectives, the drive to find solutions to overcome the crisis together? The Swedish prime minister will also take the matter to the Swedish parliament, but he was at a loss to know how to proceed. Last week's Council talks and decisions and the national debates that followed have revealed a number of fears that appear to be underpinning the approach of certain Member States to EU governance. What are we actually afraid of losing by saving Europe...? (14/12/2011)

"Europe will be forged in crises and it will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises"Jean Monnet, Memoirs, 1976

In order to resolve this crisis, avert prolonged recession and create the conditions for growth and employment, more Europe is necessary, not less: more Europe to ensure fiscal responsibility and integration, more Europe for the mutualisation of sovereign risk, the restoration of long-term solvency and the leveraging of EU-wide investment in growth, competitiveness and jobs. All this requires strong leadership from the European Commission and the reassertion of the Community method. The Commission must exercise its right of initiative and make proposals commensurate with the dimension that the crisis has taken, in place of failed ad-hoc intergovernmental palliatives.

More Europe, a new Europe will require a fundamental pooling of resources and sharing of responsibilities. It is preferable to a situation in which individual national governments are no longer able to survive the pressures of their creditors and private rating agencies. A quantum leap in European integration is necessary, not only to create debt instruments and a growth model that investors can believe in, but also -and essentially - in order to reassert democratic governance. The institutional framework for this new Europe must therefore ensure proper representative and participatory forms of accountability towards the citizen. The European Economic and Social Committee has an active role to play in this framework, both as a bridge to civil society and as a proponent of innovation and change." (07/12/2011

As I said: for what we are about to receive...........may the good Lord not make us truly thankful!

Hitchens 'on form'

A rather long post from Peter Hitchens but one well worth reading. A snippet:

"The second group are those who continue against all evidence  to believe that the Conservative Party is in fact conservative. In many cases, they believe this out of habit, and increasingly out of a fear (which they seek to suppress)  that it is not true.  For if it is not true, they might have to think and act – and anything is preferable to that."

H/T: Richard North, EU Referendum

We can trust politicians and their sycophants to be truthful?

Benedict Brogan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, states the obvious when he writes that Cameron is now engaged in a major operation of keeping the Coalition together (something most of us had realised for some time now, BB). He does raise one good question which is what, exactly, does Cameron do next, having raised the expectations of his supposedly 'eurosceptic' backbenchers. It would be nice to believe that Cameron and his backbenchers know damn well they can't repatriate one single comma of the Lisbon Treaty without the agreement of the other 26 - but hey, we are talking Conservative Party here........

Tim Montgomerie tweets:

"Tories hit 41%. Clear message: Voters like strength, honesty, patriotism (roughly in that order). EU is now no.3 issue http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/kr7zejcby7/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-131211.pdf"

If only Cameron did exhibit 'strength' ('U'Turns?); 'honesty' (Localism Bill, Recall Bill, Repatriation?); and 'patriotism' (Rule from abroad by the EU?); but hey, we are talking Cameron here........

And we, the people, are kept 'informed' of the true facts in an impartial manner?

Two 'blasts from the past'

Courtesy of Sue, Muffled Vociferation, on Twitter comes two 1971 anti-common market posters. When considering both posters, bearing in mind one has to allow for inflation on the second, it is worth noting that every prediction on these posters has materialized.

Hindsight is a wonderful gift, is it not?

A case of 'told you so'

In an earlier post I linked to one by Raedwald who suggested that the 26 to 1 scenario, in regard to the 'Events Bruxelles', may well be more like 18 to 1.

This has now been confirmed by an article in EUobserver, one which advises that within hours of arriving at a fragile treaty deal for the eurozone and nine other EU states, the agreement delivering deeper integration is already confronting the spectre of multiple referendums and a host of legal barriers.

Do follow the link - it looks like Merkozy's plans are unravelling before the pair have fully knitted them together.

Cameron's 'pyrrhic' victory

It would seem that I am not alone in believing our Prime Minister to be an utter idiot, one whose only strategy is self-preservation of office, one who is unable to see beyond the end of his nose, one who has blindly followed, with no defences to hand, an all-devouring beast that will most certainly turn round and swallow him. Cameron may have his 'victory' but the cost will be great - pyrrhic indeed.

Richard North, EU Referendum, together with Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, most expertly state the obvious, an 'obvious' that those of Cameron's party who are fawning over him would do well to read. Mary Ellen Synon, to whom Richard North links, confirms my opinion that Cameron did indeed have two aims; namely the avoidance of a referendum and the preservation of his own skin.

Raedwald posts on the potential for the 26 to 1 scenario to eventually diminish to a figure more in the region of 18 to 1 and in so doing highlights the 'spin' being applied by Cameron and his ilk to proceedings, coupled with the 'filtering' of news to which Richard North referred in one of his earlier posts.

That this is no 'victory' by Cameron is illustrated by the fact that this country will still be liable for any further directives that may come from Brussels, of a financial nature, which begs the question as to what Cameron does then. Having gone out of his way to avoid a referendum, having based his case on the damage to the City of London that future directives (or regulations) will do and how such would amount to a loss of power, all his efforts will have been in vain, surely - unless of course he insists on yet another 'U' turn and wriggles out of conforming to the requirements of his own Parliamentary Act. That really would cement his 'dictator' mantle.

In yet another example of the stupidity of his party and the supposed 'eurosceptics' within, the radio reports this morning that Cameron is under pressure to start the process of renegotiation (presumably of 'certain powers') once again. Just what is it these people do not understand about EU membership and perhaps they can point us to the section of the Lisbon Treaty that covers such a process? There is only one 'renegotiation' that needs to be undertaken and that is this country's exit from the EU - Simples.

As what is required is simple, being a simple man even Cameron should eventually get that message - hopefully.

Words, once written, cannot be erased

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
Omar Khayyám

Someone of my acquaintance produced a cd entitled "Shore-horned into the EU....swallow it whole, swallow it now". This cd documented events leading up to Britain's entry into the Common Market in the early 1970s. He sent a copy of this cd to every Member of Parliament, some of whom are now no longer in office, however, and needless to say, the majority of MPs refused to take any further action, citing 'Parliamentary Protocol', due to the fact that as he did not live in their constituency they were unable to progress his letter further.

Bearing in mind events since May 2010 and more recently the last two days, two of the replies are most illuminating:

William Hague - 23rd September 2007:

"It has been David Cameron's view for a long time that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives, to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy, it is the right that Parliament decides how we are governed on issues such as healthcare, education and policing. But Parliament should not be able to give up the powers it has been granted by the British people without their consent."

David Cameron - 13th December 2007:

"I agree that the EEC people voted for in 1975 was different from the EU we have today. We believe political integration has gone too far and people do feel that Brussels' power has grown without their consent. It is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them."

Let me say at the outset that much as I would like a referendum, I don't want one as I believe an 'In/Out' Referendum would be lost to the 'In' vote for the same reasons as was the referendum in1975, namely the power, money and 'brain-washing' that was used by those supporting the 'In' decision. 

However, when discussing the principles of democracy, if one believes that to deny a referendum is a denial of democracy the question has to be asked of William Hague: why has no referendum been granted the people, especially when, as David Cameron states, the EEC that the people voted for bears no relation to the EU of 2011;  that Brussels' power has grown without the people's consent? William Hague should remember that it is only those who practise the art of dictatorship that deny democracy to their people - and Cameron's denial of that referendum is just that: dictatorship.

If Cameron truly does believe that it is a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them, then the question arises why he does not take action to rectify the grievous wrong that has been done? More recently what, exactly, was he doing in Brussels if he was prepared to barter changes within the eurozone in return for concessions that would benefit a small section of our nation?

The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2010 general election spoke about protecting our national sovereignty, yet when a nation is unable, as is the case for this nation at present, to act in the best interests of its people; to decide its own future; to decide the laws by which its people live; it can no longer be regarded as sovereign. Only today Cameron is quoted by Bloomberg stating that Britain refused to sacrifice sovereignty to save the euro - err, what sovereignty is that, Mr. Cameron? The minute the Lisbon Treaty was ratified the last vestiges of sovereignty this nation possessed, disappeared.

I am firmly of the opinion that the next politician who utters the words 'sovereignty', in respect of this nation, or 'sovereignty' in respect of parliament, deserves a smack in the mouth!

Those Brussels Talks

Until such time as the official communique is released all that is known is that which the MSM 'reports', although as Richard North, EU Referendum, posts, what is being reported is 'filtered' news. He also makes the important point that Cameron has not vetoed a treaty change - this being contrary to what a lot of commentators and 'journalists' would have us believe.

As an aside, Paul Waugh tweets that in Brussels, already the new outer-EU group has a name: the CHUKS (Czechs, Hungary, UK, Sweden and queries whether we will CHUK ourselves out?

More to say when full details are known..........

Oh to be a fly on the wall

First, I have to offer apologies to readers for the lack of output today, a lack caused by my having to attend a housing association 'do' which lasted all day and part of the evening.

As a result there is a great deal of 'catching-up' to do with the news of today, however it is obvious that my favourite politician (not) would appear to be having a rather hard time in Brussels. I note from the Guardian that Cameron has been told to 'back-off' or face being sidelined and that the paper reports David Cameron cut the loneliest figure at the gathering, a bystander and non-contributor in the effort to save the currency, but seeking to force separate British demands on to the agenda as the price for his assent to the new regime.

If a deal is to be reached encompassing agreement by all 27 member states, it would appear Cameron has not aided that process by, according to Paul Waugh on Twitter, warning Merkozy his Tory Eurosceptics may not pass any bill ratifying a bailout fund unless he gets his 'protections'. He really is between a rock and a hard place (all of his own making I hasten add) as any failure on his part to go along with any plan to forestall the collapse of the euro - and thus the EU - will bring just as great problems at home, problems that may threaten the Coalition, his own party - and subsequently his position in that party - with increased calls for a referendum.

Digressing slightly, on this repatriation of powers thingy I am informed from a reliable source that in the debate on the EU in Shipton under Wychwood, Oxfordshire, just prior to the 2001 General Election which saw Cameron elected to Parliament for the first time David Cameron was making return of powers part of his election policy plank (and this was before more handover with the Lisbon Treaty had occurred). Cameron went further in that debate as under pressure (as to what he would do if return of these powers was refused) he clearly stated that in this case, we might have to leave the EU. This poses the question that if he believed then that in the event repatriation of powers was not possible and in that event leaving the EU was the only option, what has changed his mind? Surely not the age-old joy being part of the world power elite, hobnobbing with Heads of State and the political equivalent of the good, bad (and the ugly); revelling in the attention of the world's media?

Perhaps the time is ripe for Cameron to make good this promise (especially, bearing in mind that many more powers have gone since then) and put the leaving option on the table in Brussels tonight.

Either way it is virtually certain he will not be looking forward to his homecoming.

Transfers of Power

Preceding the meeting today between Merkel and Sarkozy - aka Merkozy - it would appear a disagreement has arisen between Iain Duncan Smith and Nick Clegg over the minutiae of the 'Referendum Act' and whether any treaty change would necessitate a referendum, with Cameron stepping in to state that there would only be a referendum "if a new treaty passes powers from UK to Brussels" adding that "as Prime Minister, I do not think the issue will arise".

Much is made of the subject of 'sovereignty' by politicians viz-a-viz our membership of the European Union; and it is therefore worthwhile considering exactly what sovereignty means. Hopefully, we can all agree that sovereignty means the ability of a nation to have supreme, independent authority within it's own territory, thus allowing it the power to make law affecting those within it's territory. Whether it concerns areas of foreign policy, immigration, or even how 'internal' matters are conducted; the minute a nation loses the right to decide any matter for itself it has suffered a loss of power - and if that loss is the result of those matters being decided by an alien 'organisation', then it has suffered a transfer of power. Since this nation has been a member of the European Union it has been subject to over thousands of rulings from that alien 'organisation' which has resulted in a transfer of power.

David Cameron has for some time been pushing the idea that in order to solve the 'euro crisis', the 17 eurozone nations should integrate and thereby accept central control of their fiscal policies. This well-thought-out policy (not) has the inherent danger that in a group of 27 members, 17 constitutes a majority and that such a majority could well impose a 'decision', one not wanted by the remaining 10. Any such 'decision' would then be binding on all 27 members and would, by nature of the concept of 'ever closer union' and 'harmonization', result in a transfer of power.

A transfer of power, under the designation of sovereignty above, is a transfer of power - there can be no degrees of transfers of power, which rather makes a mockery of the Referendum Act and the extremely careful wording with which that Act is written - but hey, we all know the reasons for that! The MSM - aka 'pretend' journalists - would have us believe that Cameron is therefore twixt the proverbial rock and a hard place, in that he either upsets the EU by granting a referendum on EU membership or he alienates his own backbenchers who, we are assured by said MSM, are largely 'eurosceptic'. Cameron is well aware that the supposed 'eurosceptics' are 'career politicians' and that they would follow their Party Whip in supporting whatever decision he makes in order to preserve their own 'careers', rather negates any worries from the rock/hard place. Of course, were he to grant a referendum it would shatter the Coalition 'accord' - which doesn't really exist, but I digress - and would result in his 'power-grab' in May 2010 having been for nought (and yes,make no mistake, Cameron is a 'career politician' too!).

Needless to say it won't be until the forthcoming 'Heads of States' meeting at the end of this week is concluded that we will know exactly 'how much further down the river we have been sold'. The fact that it should be the people who decide whether any new treaty/arrangement is acceptable, rather than a political elite, matters not.

Of course, were to to have a system of democracy that combined 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' - but yet again I digress....................

Just saying...................

A case made beyond dispute!

Richard North, EU Referendum, has kindly linked to a short post of mine - although when he writes that my point is one insufficiently expressed and that this is another of those issues where the UK incurs substantial expenditure, but the people have never been consulted as to whether they wish to make such payments, I am unsure whether the criticism is directed at me or commentators generally. Suffice it to say my wrists are now 'stinging'!

Never one to miss an opportunity (I hope), one section of Richard's post is worth repetition:

"The more one looks at the conduct of the government, the more apparent – and glaring – these anomalies become. Inherent in the result of the general election is the assumption that, in electing one or other party to government, we automatically and necessarily approve the budget plans for the next five years, or authorise our MPs to approve them.

But, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the system knows, the budget approval process has become a meaningless rubber stamp. The annual budget is barely scrutinised, and approved automatically along party lines.

It is thus the case that included in the budget each year are payments, such as to the EDA budget, that few people would approve, and for which no meaningful approval has ever been sought.

But there are also some payments of which most people actively disapprove, and given the opportunity, would actively vote against them. One such is the aid given to India...... "

Not just the budget - although Richard's point is well made - but in every aspect of 'government'; when we elect one or other party to government we automatically and necessarily approve, in advance, whatever decisions that they decide to impose on us - and we can do nothing to stop that process!

Now, if anything demonstrated that the present form of 'representative democracy' is wrong, wrong, wrong; that surely is it. And if ever a case was made for 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy', again, that surely is it!

More 'airport' news......

Following my post yesterday on the matter of our airports, today comes a press release on the subject. and it will come as no surprise that the EU already exerts control on how we 'manage' our airports. I should, perhaps, have mentioned this aspect in the previous post, however I like to credit my readers with the fact they are, indeed, 'informed'. The video which the EU has produced to 'wow' the people of Europe, in the hope that they will accept all this 'harmonisation' in the areas of transport, has to be seen to be believed!

Readers will, of course, realise that this latest edict on airports will be carried out in order to further the harmonisation of 'practices' within the EU, thus enhancing the working of the single market. The problem is that, when considering Articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), it behoves me to repeat a question previously posed. Would anyone care to name one aspect of your life that is not - or will not be - affected by our membership of the European Union?

Well?