Ed Miliband - a la Cameron - a bloody liar!

All our politicians speak of governing us and governing for the many not the few, the latest example being Ed Miliband while launching his party's local manifesto for the forthcoming elections in May. According to Politics Home he stated that he will govern for the whole country, not just the wealthy few. As with all statements issued by the political elite, Ed Miliband has blatantly lied to the British public.


Ed Miliband can no more govern this country - as cannot any other party leader - than can you or I, as he and they have been party to ceding that governance to Brussels through our membership of the EU. Even if we were to accept that Miliband could govern this country as a sovereign nation, through our membership of the EU he would be governing not just for the whole country, but also for the wealthy few - in Brussels.


EU Commissioner's pay scales are specified in this document and their basic monthly salaries are fixed at 112.5% of the top European civil service grade. This works out at €19,909.89. The President is paid at 138% (€24,422.80), Vice Presidents at 125% (€22,122.10) and the High Representative at 130% €23,006.98. Viewed in 'real' money those figures convert to £16,529.29 (£198,351.48 per annum); £20,275.14 (£243,301.68 per annum); £18,368.90 (£220,426.80 per annum); and £19,103.68 (£229,244.16 Per annum). There are further allowances on top of this figure including a residency allowance and an entertainment allowance. Now, there are 18 Commissioners, 7 Vice Presidents, Ashton and Barroso - you go do the maths.


Just saying - not that Miliband's lies will be mentioned in the MSM of course..........

Oops!

From European Parliament / News:

"Parliament is "extremely worried" about the looming shortage of payments in 2012, which may overshadow the negotiations concerning next year's budget. In December 2011 no solution was found to claims for funding amounting to €10 billion, as some Member States questioned the financial data provided by the Commission. These payments had to be postponed to 2012 and will inevitably lead to a shortage of funds by the end of the year." (Emphasis mine)

The heart bleeds..................(not!)




H/T: Ironies Too

 

What the people think

From Worldbytes comes an interesting video, one that I seem unable to reproduce; hence just the link.

On the streets of Walthamstow in East London, they asked the public what they think about the European Union. It’s clear that opposition to the EU is not the preserve of bigoted ‘little Englanders’, far from it. People are seriously concerned at the EU’s undemocratic set-up and want to have their say. Individuals backing the EU are hard to find and are against a referendum as they see their fellow citizens as ignorant and too ill-educated to ‘understand the issues’

It is interesting that one interviewee made the comment that democracy is not the voice of a small group of un-elected people, nor is it the voice of Tony Blair, David Cameron or Sarkozy - it is the voice of the people.

Direct democracy and 'Referism' is the voice of the people!

You WHAT??????

In the exchange twixt Cameron and Miliband in the HoC today, on the subject of the recent European Council meeting, Cameron said this in relation to Syria:

"First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Syria and answer his questions specifically. On the special envoy, we are helping Kofi Annan. Indeed, we are funding part of his mission." (my emphasis)

Cameron acknowledges our country is broke; Cameron continues to fund other countries, through 'overseas aid', at the expense of those 'at home' who suffer 'cuts' as a result; Cameron preaches 'austerity' as a requirement to 'balance the books' - and he then inflicts yet more pain on his own people by spending yet more money, that he hasn't got, to assist a UN 'official' to jet to the Middle East?

And his 'mandate' for this was agreed by those he is meant to serve? This decision was where in his election manifesto as Leader of the Conservative Party - or was where in the Coalition's Programme for Government? And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship wherein politicians can spend money that is not theirs?

The sooner our politicians are brought under the direct control of those they are meant to serve - and on whose money they rely - the better. In other words, the sooner the people of this country understand exactly what direct democracy and 'Referism' means, the sooner the largesse of the politcal class will be curbed and the sooner the people will regain control of their country!

Has he got permission?

In today's Sunday Telegraph Robert Watts, Deputy Political Editor, writes that George Osborne has a £10billion dilemma on his mind ahead of this month’s Budget. In view of this report in the WSJ which is a precis of a report from the Dow Jones Newswires - and on which Lord Stoddart commented in the House of Lords - one wonders if our George has clearance for his proposals, whatever they are.


Presumably the picture in the article shows George Osborne in suitable pose while waiting for said clearance.

EU Imperialism?

Open Europe, in today's press summary, reports that EU foreign ministers voted on Monday to transfer the presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean from France to the EU’s External Action Service headed by Catherine Ashton - of which not one word in the MSM have I found, but I digress. This think tank also produces a 'briefing paper' on the subject of EU aid to Mediterranean states and the effectiveness of this aid. What is surprising is that Open Europe makes no mention of the Barcelona Declaration, a subject about which I wrote previously here and here. For those readers interested more on the Barcelona Declaration, more information can be read on the EU's Summaries of Legislation website. It is also pertinent to refer to the European External Action Service website from which we learn that with the introduction of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in 2004, the Barcelona Process essentially became the multilateral forum of dialogue and cooperation between the EU and its Mediterranean partners while complementary bilateral relations are managed mainly under the ENP and through Association Agreements signed with each partner country.


What is interesting are two extracts from Open Europe's briefing paper:

"the poverty focus of EU aid cannot be measured solely on the basis of its geographical distribution…the EU institutions provide substantial financial support (including ODA) to prepare (potential) candidate countries for membership and to establish an area of stability, prosperity and democracy in our wider neighbourhood, pursuing our goal of greater political cooperation and deeper economic integration with our neighbours."

and:

"Our neighbourhood policy is a success story. We work closely with our partners to help them advance their structural reforms and bring them closer to our Union."

Note the phrases "deeper economic integration" and "bring them closer to our Union". What we have here is no more than the now normal process, one practised by the EU to increase its size and therefore its empirical aims - it is also, I would suggest, part of the process, commonly known as the New World Order and/or World Government; a process about which the people know little, if anything.


That 'agreements' can be signed that will have an effect on the future direction of our country; that since 1995, the European Commission has supported the Barcelona Process with the provision of €16 billion from the Community Budget and that loans from the European Investment Bank amount to approximately €2 billion per year, all without the agreement of the people who are funding this, amounts to an affront to democracy - but hey, when was the EU ever interested in the idea of democracy. That our MSM do not report any aspect of the foregoing, for whatever reason, is another affront to democracy. That a think tank, albeit one a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party, seems incapable of mentioning any diminuation of democracy is another affront.


That we have 650 'Judas Goats' in Westminster is no longer deniable, consequently if our nation is to recover its independence and sovereignty; if we the people are to have any freedom; we have a desperate need to herd these 650 to the slaughterhouse immediately - followed by their lambs in Open Europe and elsewhere!

Daniel is a cynic? No, not that one..........

.....that one is a politician and politicians don't do cynicism - its not in their genes. In this particular case I am referring to Daniel Knowles, an Assistant Comment Editor at the Telegraph. Writing about the Coalition, he pens:

"So it is hardly shocking to find that the newspapers are full of accounts of Lib Dem intransigence. Last week, it was tax cuts, as David Laws was enlisted to go on Newsnight and make the case for an increase in the personal allowance. This week, it is the NHS. As you can tell from the report on page two of today's Sun (headline: "Cam caves in to Clegg on health") the Liberal Democrats are getting uppity, demanding more compromises to Andrew Lansley's zombie Bill. No one is pretending that has anything to do with the contents of the reforms. No one understands the reforms. It's all about positioning: Nick Clegg wants to appear to be mauling the Tories, and ideally, the Tories want to appear not to be mauled too much. Call me cynical, but I suspect it was all coordinated in advance anyway." Emphasis mine.

In respect of the emboldened section of the extract above, it is indeed gratifying to see cynicism displayed by one so young. Is not 'coordinated action' how politics is conducted in our country nowadays? Is that not how the charade of Prime Minister's Questions is conducted? Is that not how politics is conducted when any question on our membership of the European Union is raised? I note that Bill Cash has secured an emergency debate tomorrow on the subject of the legality of using European Union institutions to implement the fiscal pact agreed by 25 EU nations; following the decision by the Irish Attorney General that a referendum needed to be held in Ireland on the subject. And what exactly will Cash's debate solve when our real government no longer resides in Westminster - but then Bill Cash has never been one to shun the EU limelight.


Now can we have direct democracy and referism - please!

Its that damn 'Cyprus problem' again!

From the Open Europe press summary we learn that Turkey is refusing to have any normal relations with the rotating EU presidency when Cyprus takes over on 1st July.

Well, what a surprise - not! As I posted here, where Turkey's accession to the European Union is concerned the 'Cyprus problem' was always going to remain just that - a problem.

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

David Owen 'spectates'

David Owen has a lengthy article on the Coffee House in which he gives us the benefit of his views on the eurozone and its present troubles, together with his idea of a 'double' EU - one with what he terms an inner zone and and outer zone. Let us leave to one side his views on the former and concentrate on his views on the latter. Do read the entire article - it is laughable in the aims that Owen proposes.

Like all europhiles, he maintains we should not walk away but remain, using quiet persistence, in order to achieve 'two Europes' -a wider and an inner - that would live in harmony one with the other (is this not more 'change from within' - a policy that has been shown to have failed already?). Just what is it that the idiot Owen does not accept about the entire reason for the EU's existence? The minute the EU allowed one member to leave, the minute the EU allowed a 'two-core-membership', its entire reason for existing is dismantled - the EU is an all or nothing membership!

Later, in this illogical piece of political thinking (but hey, when has any political thinking been logical?) Owen acknowledges that there would have to be a UK referendum on a choice of wider membership or inner membership, but fails to even mention that a third choice should be available - one of neither.  He discusses the matter of enlargement of EU membership, one possibly comprising a membership of 40 countries - which leads on to another thought.

There is much discussion about the drift to world government - which leads one to question whether the EU is part of this 'movement'? Richard N. Gardner, recent Ambassador to Spain, writing in Foreign Affairs, stated:

"In short, the 'house of world order,' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down....but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

Which is basically the tenet of Jean Monnet in proposing a European union.

From Jordan Maxwell, Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge, (n.p., 2000) pp. 15-16 we read the words of David Rockfeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity....But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march  towards world government....The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

Bilderberg?

The English Constitution contains two documents; the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights  of 1689 which cannot allow any of the above. From a Bruges Group 'paper' we read:

"If the British Constitution were simply followed, the rights and liberties of the British people would be placed above reproach. Recall that the collective body of documents comprising the British Constitution nullify government-imposed limitation of liberty. Even if a government were technically successful in achieving limitations on liberty, the corresponding action would be immediately void, as mandated by the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, and the Magna Carta itself. As explained earlier, the Declaration requires that, “…the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration…shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration…in all time to come.” But are not rights merely words on paper if the people are not vigilant in their defense? The Magna Carta contains actionable measures designed to thwart despotic machinations."

That we the people need to become more vigilant in their own defense is not in question - and is but another reason why the introduction of direct democracy is required. A move wherein and whereby the people, being asked to assume more responsibility for their nation, would thus be able to impose vigilance for their own benefit and future.

Or put more simply - and as proposed by Richard North, EU Referendum, some months ago - would it not be simpler if the people just rose up now and slaughtered the present political elite?

Cameron and the 'Edinburgh' Speech

The New Statesman has a transcript of this speech - and interesting reading it makes. Here we have a Conservative Prime Minister who readily admits he is not 'flavour of the month' where he and his party is concerned, who admits he should show a tad of humility - then forgetting both points and pleading with the Scottish people not to take away any more of the dictatorial power he has left.


Bearing in mind that last point, Cameron may be doing something rare for him in that when he talks about not being in Scotland to make a case on behalf of his party, its interests or its approach to office - he may well be telling the truth. It is a pity that he could not add that he was not there for personal political reasons either. I find his statement that the United Kingdom isn't just some sort of deal, to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, a tad odd when is that not just what our Masters in Brussels are aiming for with their programme of regionalisation? Is it not the EU's aim to remove the nation state, thus making us all 'EUians'? With typical Cameron aplomb we then have the suggestion that any referendum should be 'in/out', with a discussion on what powers would be devolved afterwards. So a man who cannot keep a 'cast-iron' promise is asking people to accept an unspecified promise? We all know that Cameron has a background in PR - it is now becoming clear that where PR is concerned, PR relates to being a Prize Rat.


Then we have the other 'actor' in this saga, Alex Salmond, who in common with all politicians wants to be 'top dog' in his own country, yet who with his wish to be part of the EU, cannot see that he would then no longer be 'top dog'. To be fair one cannot blame Salmond for his attempted 'power grab' when idiots like Blair open the bottle and let the genie out - leaving his successors the problem of trying to control it.


There is of course yet another legal 'problem' in that it was the United Kingdom who joined what was then the EEC and it could be argued that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom would not what remained - and I'm not sure what it would be called - have to then re-apply under its new name, as would Scotland. That would surely mean a referendum would have to be held, something Cameron will shift heaven and earth to avoid - so it is no surprise he doesn't want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. On the point of the legalities involved, no doubt far better brains than mine will be able to enlighten us on the legalities that a break-up of the UK viz-a-viz the EU would pose.


Needless to say the entire question of the United Kingdom remaining 'united' could easily be solved with the introduction of direct democracy - of which, more later........

Regional assemblies

Ian Parker-Joseph (IanPJonPolitics) has an interesting post on the above subject, one in which he focuses on 'misdemeanours' within the East Midlands Regional Assembly, whilst linking to the little known UK Delegation of the Committee of the Regions. On that subject you then of course have this idiot 'bigging-up' that group of parasites. Interestingly, in his 'about' section the link to his cv does not work, hence it is necessary to view Wikipedia to then find he is another EU sycophant.

The Coalition may have stated an intention to disband Regional Assemblies and from the relevant page on parliamentary website we find it is the intention for this to have been effected by 1st April 2012. Where Regional Development Agencies are concerned, these were originally set up to, amongst other 'duties', manage the disbursement of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Rural Development Programme. As with all things political there is an 'element of 'smoke and mirrors' because, under the Coalitions programme for government, we find on page 10 the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships to replace Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and that these may take the form of the existing RDAs in areas where they are popular.

In other words: 'same old, same old', thus allowing the regionalisation programme to continue.

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

But, Mr. Hannan, is not that.......

......something that the peoples of a nation state should decide?

That 'something' appears in his Daily Telegraph blog where Hannan writes:

"As late as the first Bush presidency, most American opinion-formers, including most conservatives, vaguely favoured the idea of a united Europe...."

a philosophy which was also prevalent in the UK. Ah, you may say, we were asked - and so we were. Unfortunately, where the people of the United Kingdom were concerned, the ramifications of an affirmative response were never fully explained, the campaign was rigged and the Prime Minister at the time blatantly lied - but hey, that is politicians for you.

Hannan continues in his article to state that Britain is a common law democracy and he is wrong on both points. What common law we had has been steadily eroded by the political elite - and continues to be - and neither do we have a democracy, per se. That, in effect, we live under a system of democratised dictatorship in which once every few years we are allowed to choose which party of incompetent thieves should 'rule' us is something which Hannan does not address. Oh and please don't quote 'The Plan' to me - that is no more than a way to maintain the status quo, one whereby ultimate control still rests with the political elite.

In fairness, Hannan does make one or two relevant points - unfortunately I gain the impression that Daniel Hannan talks a good fight, but when the fighting starts he is conspicuous by his absence. Richard North, EU Referendum, has referred to Hannan as 'Myrtle' - as in Myrtle, the Judas Goat - and I for one cannot disagree.

Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell! (2)

That Cameron does not' govern Britain was raised in the first post with this title which dealt with the point about coastguard closures and Cameron's lack of power. This subject was also covered here in respect of the Costa Concordia tragedy.

Today yet another example of Cameron's inability to 'govern' has been illustrated with the report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph from Bruno Waterfield and in today's edition of the same paper James Kirkup reports (does not appear to be on-line) that the UK is one of 12 countries facing an investigation by the commission under a new "economic governance" procedure to "detect and correct risky economic developments. Kirkup's article goes on to state that Olli Rehn, the European economic affairs commissioner, said that if the "in depth scrutiny" concluded that household borrowing was dangerously excessive, the Coalition would be told to"take appropriate action to correct the situation". The European Commission press release on this subject can be read here, a press release which contains links to the full report.

Do note the words 'the Coalition will be told to take appropriate action to correct the situation'. So Cameron, as Prime Minister, heads the government of our country - and George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in charge of our country's economic policies? Where there any 'eurosceptics' within the Conservative Party, surely they would be crawling all over this news item and asking questions in Parliament and raising the matter in the press?

Two quotations spring to mind:

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws."
Amschel Rothchild

"Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who predict don't have knowledge."
Lao Tzu, 6th century BC poet

The first quotation is, perhaps, now redundant as the EU has virtually managed both, but I digress - and the second shows why politicians (especially the likes of Osborne and Balls) should not attempt to predict economic outcomes - or outcomes of any kind.

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


Afterthought: While our democracy, our 'independence, our status as a 'sovereign nation' is being trashed before our eyes, Cameron is presently fixated on binge-drinking? Priorities, Mr. Cameron? The mind, something he appears to be missing, boggles.......

Europe Needs Democratic Rejuvenation

So writes Viviane Reding in an article which appears in the WSJ (subscription necessary), one in which Open Europe reports:

"In an op-ed in the WSJ, EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, writes that 20 years after Maastricht, Europe is in need of “democratic rejuvenation”, and she proposes a five-point plan for 2020. The plan includes convening “a convention to draft a treaty on European political union. Such an agreement should ensure that the European Parliament becomes a true European legislature, with the right to initiate legislation and the exclusive right to elect the Commission… From 2016-19, the treaty on political union would be subject to ratification in all member states by way of referendums. It would enter into force once two-thirds of member states have ratified it. Citizens should be given two alternatives: either to accept the new treaty, or to reject it and remain in a close form of association, notably by continuing to participate in the single market."

So we are to have a referendum after all, although of course not the one we want. 


This move by Reding presents Cameron, were he to still be Prime Minister, with a slight problem right at the outset, namely does he participate in the drafting of a treaty on political union or does he politely request that everyone else takes a long walk of a short pier. Were Cameron still Prime Minister and still heading a coalition government the problem for Cameron becomes even more intricate, especially if Clegg is still leader of the Liberal Democrats. A third piece in this jigsaw can best be summed up with the words: God forbid that Labour were to win the next general election, in particular were MilibandE still leader.


From Open Europe it is also reported that that which Reding is proposing is echoed by Angela Merkel:

"Separately, Handelsblatt reports that at the same event, Merkel said that “step-by-step, European politics is merging with domestic politics”, and called for “comprehensive structural reform” of the EU in the form of closer political integration in order to overcome its “major shortcomings”. Specifically, she said that member states ought to be prepared to cede further powers to the EU, and that the European Commission ought to function more as a European government, with the Council of Ministers operating as a “second chamber” alongside a strengthened European Parliament."

One can only hope that before any such treaty on political union could become effective, we in the UK will have exhausted our stocks of ammunition for AK47s and also be experiencing a problem where the supply of piano wire is concerned!

An EU Referendum......

........would no doubt be 'rigged' in exactly the same manner as is the proposed one in Scotland on the subject of independence.

Once again, beware of that for which you wish!

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

More 'faux' journalism from another 'faux' journalist

Patrick Hennessey, erstwhile 'Political Editor' of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, reports that David Cameron has been hit by a major protest by Conservative MPs over the Government’s backing for wind farms.

That current planning laws are 'rigged' in favour of the state is not addressed by Hennessey; that Huhne, rather than face a charge of treason, has settled to face the lesser charge of perverting the course of justice is not addressed - but I digress; that the building of wind turbines is the result of compliance with EU requirements is not addressed; that these 101 MPs will have as much effect as those calling for the repatriation of powers is not addressed; that Chris Heaton-Harris is no more a eurosceptic than Cameron is a Conservative is not addressed; that the Conservatives who are ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are unable to sign because they are part of the government “payroll” and as a result are unable to represent their constituents concerns (another deficit of our democratic system of representative democracy) is not addressed; that Tracy Crouch can punt a football further than she will be able to punt opposition to this is not addressed.

And this article is journalism? And Hennessey is a journalist?

Sheesh! Is it any wonder the public are 'ignorant' of matters important when they are reliant upon 'informers' such as Hennessey?

Just asking...........


Update: The text of the letter to which the article refers can be read here. Heaton-Harris' amendments aren't worth the proverbial crock of!

Ignorance is truth

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."
John Locke (1632-1704)

 "I believe its better to tell the truth than to lie, better to be free than to be a slave and its better to know than to be ignorant."
H.L. Mencken

Perhaps the greatest of all properties that the people own is their own freedom, yet politicians through the ages have usurped that freedom and done so by dictatorial means. Consider, why is this country still a member of the European Union when that body is far removed from that on which the people were last given a choice? Why have draconian laws been introduced - and are still being introduced - which bear no relation to that which political parties promised in their manifestos? Immediate examples of the latter question that spring to mind are the smoking ban, the recall of MPs and the devolution of power to the people, including a right to request referendums.


When the Coalition was created the public were led to believe that political differences had been put to one side for the good of the country and the Foreward to their programme for government intimated that. The people were also assured that the two parties realised that by forming a coalition their visions would not be compromised by working together; that they would be strengthened and enhanced. Strange then that those differences which were supposed to have been put to one side, have resurfaced; that the visions would not be compromised but would be strengthened and enhanced, have not been strengthened, nor enhanced. We are treated to articles in the press detailing what amounts to internecine warfare between the two Coalition parties, here and here (free registration available for access). How can such a situation arise if the two parties are supposed to be working harmoniously together for the good of the country? How is the good of the country served by two parties, supposedly working together, yet spend what seems to be an inordinate amount of time 'point scoring' off each other?


The answer lies in every political party's inherent lust for power - and absolute power - because, under our system of representative democracy, why else would people enter the field of politics? It most certainly is not to act in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent - and if it is, then it is indeed odd that they form what is called a government, a word derived from 'govern', ie, to 'rule'. It also begs repetition of Ronald Reagan's question from his first Inaugural Speech "But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"; so by what 'right' do politicians continue their usurpation of power via the practice of politics?


No country can be served when those elected to work for that country's benefit are at virtual loggerheads. No country can be served when those elected have, in effect, unfettered power whilst holding office unless the people have the means to halt those policies which they are against. No country can be served when those elected to office assume the belief that they and only they have the right to dictate to their fellow man. No country can be served when those elected to office are untruthful with their fellow men, through omission of all the facts, or in some instances resorting to downright lies.


Through the lack of transparency and truth, one of the deficits within our democracy and one practiced by our politicians, the people remain ignorant. As an example, let us consider that of membership of the European Union, in which the political mantra is maintained by all parties, that the benefits are obvious. Is it any wonder that this subject does not appear very high amongst concerns expressed to MPs by their constituents when it is rarely raised by those MPs - and on the rare occasions it is, is ignored by the MSM? It is logical to assume that were that not the case the subject may well rapidly rise up the list of consituent's concerns.


Daniel Hannan has just posted, 'railing against HS2" (pun intended), and quoting the old line that it matters not for whom you vote as nothing changes. He points out that while Councillors, MPs and even MEPs are against the new line, it has mattered not and questions is it any wonder people have give, up at the ballot box. Towards the end of his article he laments the passing of Sir John Hempden who, he asserts, lived and died for the democratic cause: for the ideal that the executive should not be allowed to disregard the people's representatives -- unfortunately he omits to state that neither should the people's representatives be allowed to disregard their constituents - a fact that is probably the root cause  for why the electorate has 'given up a the ballot box'.


The sorry state of our democracy is further illustrated by a another quotation from H.L. Mencken, one most pertinent to our politicians:

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

and then, in accordance with present political principles, rescind that promise once elected.


Afterthought: In answer to a parliamentary question, details of all consultants used by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport have been published, details which includes their names, remits and costs to date. (H/T: Sue at Muffled Vociferation and @EU_Dictatorship on twitter)

Another sporting 'red herring' resurfaces

The BBC trumpets that: "Euro MEPs back call for sports shirts to feature EU flag" with MEPs also endorsing a plan for the EU flag to be flown at major international sporting events in Europe, but neither of the measures would be compulsory.


Bearing in mind that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Union competence in sport the statement from their spokesperson, in this article, that: "But the commission has no authority to impose such a decision and nor would it wish to." ring a tad hollow.


Of course one would have thought by now that the BBC, with all their resources, would have done their research - but one again we see yet another failure from them. Only last July Richard North, EU Referendum, succinctly summarised the position in this post. It is worth repeating his closing sentences:

"So what was approved by Thatcher in 1985 comes back to haunt the heir to Heath in 2011, 26 years later – in a treaty he could have stopped, by chose not to. Like as not, the EU won't get its badges this time, but the idea won't go away. It will keep pushing and probing until it gets what it wants, waiting another 26 years if need be, unless we (or events) destroy it first."

They say that what goes round, comes round - we can but hope that the next time a story comes round, the BBC will have eventually got their news service staffed with those who understand the word 'research'.

If only they meant it......

Courtesy once again of The Albion Alliance Presents we are informed of an 'initiative' by the European Union, one in which the suggestions of citizens are requested. Unfortunately there are one or two 'conditions' that are required to be met.


My own proposal would be for the Commission to disband itself after rescinding every Treaty, Directive, Regulation and Opinion it had issued - and then to disappear up its own 'exhaust pipe'!


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

The EU's 'law-grab'

The Daily Mail advises us that the EU now wants power to set 'Euro-crimes' punishments in our courts, continuing that eurocrats were last night accused of making a ‘massive power grab’ which would allow Brussels to dictate laws to Britain and decide punishments in our courts. This is presented as 'news', following the debate in Parliament yesterday, although the EU Commission document to which the Mail refers - and about which the debate was held - is actually dated 23rd September last year. The delay twixt the publication of the document and the parliamentary debate is no doubt due, as Keith Vaz complained, to the fact that MPs are too busy that they simply do not have the time to cover European issues, and therefore rely heavily on the European Scrutiny Committee to alert them if anything is going wrong. This begs the question of what, exactly, our MPs could do - were they so inclined - on any matter EU whilst they continue to acquiesce to Brussels, but again I digress. Thought: Perhaps if MPs spent less time worrying about how chips are arranged on their plates, the cost of their food and drink; oh - and gave up their directorships and 'advisorships' they may have a tad more time for their primary occupation?

A number of important points were made: Kate Hoey was correct when she pointed out that the most iniquitous thing about all this continuing opting in and moving into an ever-closer European Union for this country is the fact that the British people have never given their permission for that to happen, a point Crispin Blunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, underlined in his summation to the debate when he stated that the Government will continue to examine the content of European Union criminal law proposals and our participation in them on a case-by-case basis - no mention of the people, it will be noted. Bill Cash was also correct when he made the point about 'tendency', whereby in almost every area, the original proposals—from Maastricht, through to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon—have adopted a minimalist approach at the beginning, but then expanded, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired. Cash was also correct in his assertion that all that was being discussed is liable to be decided under Qualified Majority voting (QMV) where Articles 82-86 are concerned.


Reverting to the point about government deciding matters with no reference to the people, on this subject I was struck by that which Geoffrey Cox said. "It is to this House that citizens of this country entrust the moral judgments that underlie decisions about what should be criminalised and what should not". I note that we are now 'citizens' - thus distancing us from the political class - rather than 'people' and Cox should realise that the people have no option but to entrust the moral judgment on matters because the people are never asked for their opinion; they are only ever told what their opinion should be. That is a rather neat example of 'democratised dictatorship', something which is replicated in virtually every 'Act' that is passed by Parliament.

Crispin Blunt also made much of the 'emergency brake' whereby Member States can pull that so-called "lever" if they consider that proposed legislation touches upon fundamental aspects of their national criminal justice system: from Europa we learn that to balance the introduction of QMV in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Lisbon Treaty introduced a procedure called the “emergency brake” to protect the interests of Member States. It allows Member States to bloc the adoption of a legislative proposal and to send it to the European Council, if they feel that the proposal has an impact on fundamental aspects of their criminal law system. In such a case, co-decision procedure is suspended. After discussion, and if there is a consensus, the European Council, within 4 months of the date procedures were suspended, then sends back the proposal to the Council, which then ends the suspension of the normal legislative procedure or co-decision. If there is no consensus, within the same timeframe, a minimum of 9 Member States can proceed with enhanced cooperation on the basis of the original proposal. Reverting to the point Cash made about the EU's method of operating whereby a minimalist approach occurs at the beginning, but then expands, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired, what price that in say 10 years time Protocol 21 (which covers the UK's ability to opt in/out on freedom, security and judicial matters) is changed/annulled/overriden - which, in a manner of speaking, would rather 'Blunt' Crispin's emergency brake.


To finish on a lighter note, on reading Vaz's short mention of his school days with Andy Slaughter and the fact that he (Vaz) used to try to avoid being in class with him because their names were adjacent on the register, and when they were read out in quick succession—"Slaughter", "Vaz" caused comment, my immediate thought was: 'if only'.