As I am busy most of today and hope to attend the Bloggers-Bash at the ASI this evening, posting today will be extremely light, even possibly non-existent.
Change of URL
15 years ago
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
I wonder if we do..........?
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."
The European Union and our money
My, my, the European Union is busy, busy..........
Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents, the source of all the following EU links, we find that recently these took - or will take - place:
Of course, all this costs money in time, personnel etc and when reading this one can understand why EU budgets have to increase, year on year. I won't dwell on the subject of how many Directives those three meetings might spawn in the years to come..........
Thought for the day
It is often asked why the status of politicians has reached such a nadir and what can be done to improve the calibre of present and future candidates. It would appear that the answer is nothing:
"It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellowmen."G.E. MacDonald
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
EU & Accounting
As the European Union accounts have not been signed off for - how many years is it now? - what relevance does this press release* from the EU have?
Just asking....................
Culinary Provisions: Them & Us (2)
Following the previous post of this title, a little further research reveals the perks of being:
Still searching for what Cameron had at the Heads of State meeting at which this year's EU budget increase was agreed at the 2.9% figure - suspect it involved him getting his goose cooked..........
Culinary Provisions: Them & Us!
For those amongst us with families, the retired on just state pension, the unemployed, those pinching and scraping to make ends meet in order to put food on the table, I bet you just wish you were a Minister responsible for Demography and Family Policy.
A Duff exception
It is not very often that someone warrants the honour of being the subject of two posts in one day on this blog (other than the chief 'pratmoron' in Number 10, who continually undermines his own authority due to his 'foot 'n mouth' problem), so step forward Andrew Duff, a mere 'pratmoron'.
Following on from my earlier post today on Andrew Duff, it is now confirmed that the Constitutional Affairs Committee (CACEP) of the European Parliament have proposed that an extra 25 MEPs be elected on a pan-European ticket, amongst other proposals. Duff maintains that this will improve the popular legitimacy of their House and has a great chance to establish a coherent modernisation of the electoral procedure. What he does not realise is that if the European Parliament had any real legitimacy it would not then be necessary to improve it, popular or otherwise. Of course, Duff's wish to establish a coherent modernisation of the electoral procedure is code for silencing even more the nationalist voices presently being heard. For readers who wish to delve deeper into this matter, click here and follow the links.
This proposal by the CACEP ties in very neatly with my post of a few days ago, on the subject of pan-European parties. It is not unrealistic to query how long before the number of 25 is increased and the number of national MEPs is decreased. This is what Duff was intending with his original draft report which included a proposed mathematical formula for redistributing the seats in the European Parliament, one that was not adopted - but one without doubt for which Duff will continue to press in the future.
Update: In his own words! "If we really want a successful post-national parliamentary democracy, Europe's political class has to move with the times. So far national politicians have been rather bad at connecting citizens with the EU. It will not be acceptable for those national politicians who are so critical of the European Parliament to refuse to contemplate its reform".
Colonisation not Immigration
GoodnightVienna, Calling England, from whom I got the title for this post, writes on David Cameron's admission that cutting immigration numbers to 'tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands' is but an aim of his and not Coalition policy.
To have made an important speech, as Cameron did on 14th of this month, without thinking that it would not be jumped on by the likes of Cable and Clegg demonstrates the stupidity of the man. Not only has it been jumped on by the two aforementioned, but Russia Today lost no time in interviewing Nigel Farage on the matter:
As Farage states in the above video - and as we all know - Cameron can only decrease the number of immigrants from outside the European Union. Even the BBC gave Farage airtime to rebut Cameron:
Because it would appear that even government statistics cannot be trusted, it is not illogical to say that it matters not whether the number of immigrants is 1,000 or 100,000, we should have the right to decide who enters this country. Of course the problem is compounded by the fact that those immigrants who commit crimes against society invariably cannot be deported due to an infringement of their human rights. Bearing in mind also, picking up on Farage's point, benefit rules change on 1st May which will inevitably mean immigrations numbers will increase from within the European Union.
GoodnightVienna writes:
"Officially, there are already 62m+ people living in the UK excluding illegals who've disappeared into the black economy. Rough estimates indicate that within twenty years the population will be over the 70m mark. Within 40/50 years the English, who have been most affected by immigration, will be a minority in England. This isn't immigration; it's colonisation and it's been deliberate government policy."
This is colonisation of our country, a deliberate policy of the European Union - on the divide and rule theory - in order to fulfill their desire to erase the idea of nationhood and nation states. It is the most despicable example of social-engineering and is on a par with the policy adopted by Hitler who attempted to reach the same ends only by a quicker, different method!
One MEP who should be 'Duff(ed)' up!
Mary Ellen Synon posts in the antics of one Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP, regarding his remarks made while attenting the constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament.
"My sans-culottes informer inside the committee room reports to me that Duff used the phrase 'the country I know best' when he meant 'Britain.' Those of you who follow this blog will know that 'the country I know best' is the phrase eurocrats are trained to use whenever they find they are forced to refer to their own country.
The idea is that Europe must ultimately erase national borders and national distinctions -- and, hell yes, nations. By obliterating mention of what are no longer sovereign states the European Project moves that much closer to its goal."
and:
"There they were discussing Hungary's own new constitution, and my sans-culottes tells me Duff started praising a clause in the constitution banning the use of referenda for European treaties. Duff thinks this is a good thing: stop the people having a vote on ever-closer-union."That Andrew Duff is a federalist is not news, neither is it that he has designs on climbing the greasy pole of EU power and within that ambition does a lot of licking. With the amicable weather we are experiencing most people are enjoying ice-creams and lollipops - although in Duff's case I am sure readers will realise I am not referring to those when writing about his act of licking, but I digress.
Duff's aims, along with that of all Europhiles, should be sufficient to ensure that, as Mary Ellen Synon writes, one day the revolution will happen and that Andrew Duff's name will be right there, recorded -- as justice demands, although we don't need the 'tricot'. His name is imprinted in our minds, thus ensuring he will be amongst the first to be introduced to a lamp post!
H/T: Sue (Muffled Vociferation) on Twitter.
Update: Obviously two minds working at the same time on the same subject (Richard North on EU Referendum)
Why MPs work for their party and not their electorate
Zac Goldsmith has an article in the New Statesman regarding what he sees as a deficit within our democracy, in that he believes MPs are forced to consider their careers in politics, above their prime responsibility to their constituents.
This is a topic on which I have posted previously, as regular readers will be aware. There are members of parliament who do put their constituents above any intention to forge a career within politics and the two Philips, Davies and Hollobone, are perhaps examples that immediately spring to mind.
From Goldsmith's article:
"A backbench MP is paid to do two things - hold the government to account and vote in a way that is good for the people they represent. The present structures ensure they do neither, and the effect is that decisions taken by a very small number of politicians are subjected to virtually no scrutiny at all.
You have only to look at the maths. Nearly a third of MPs are on the "payroll". That includes ministers, shadow ministers and also parliamentary private secretaries, who are not paid, but who are bound by the code of loyalty that requires them always to vote with the government. Of the remaining two-thirds of MPs, most want to join the payroll. That requires a political lobotomy, and unthinking submission to the party line.
Loyalty is one thing, but we have reached an extreme. If a backbench MP speaks out against a government decision, it is seen as an act of aggression. If he tables a minor amendment, it's worse still. And if he votes against his party, it's an act of career suicide."
The points Goldsmith makes in those three paragraphs are true and they do not just apply to the Conservative Party. His point about the Localism Bill and that the recall of an MP is still with that MP's fellow politicians is also true - on the same point of principle though, he fails to mention that within that same bill, whilst referenda can be called, local authorities have been given the power to ignore the results if they so wish.
There are many other deficits about which Goldsmith has not written, which is a great pity; and to give him the benefit of doubt, that may be due to space limitations imposed on him. Whilst it is refreshing to see an MP speak out about democratic deficit(s) and the only other MP to continually do this - and blog on the subject - is, to my knowledge, Douglas Carswell, it is a great pity that more MPs do not follow likewise.
Much is in the news presently about the AV referendum with arguments from both sides of the divide, some true and some false. What is apparent though is that whilst the present political system exists, any change to whatever new system of voting is selected, it will not make one iota of difference to how MPs behave, it will not make them work harder and it most definitely will not make them more answerable to their constituents.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Do as I say, not as I do........
Courtesy of Edward Spalton, via email, comes this which is quite an interesting post from Germany.
Two versions of the same message
Courtesy of EnglandExpects I have 'nicked' the following youtube video as it says, in far fewer words, exactly what this says!
Which, bearing in mind the video is circa 1958, just shows that there is nothing new in political output!
More 'social-engineering' and lack of choice from the EU
The latest in the area of social-engineering from our masters in Brussels has just become available, news for which I just know we have all been waiting. In pursuit of their 'green fanaticism' and their wish to reduce carbon emissions, it seems that another choice that we - who hold the dubious pleasure of being EU citizens - have, is to be taken away from us.
"The EU transport commissioner, Siim Kallas, has announced a series of green transport goals including shifting the majority of flights longer than 300km to rail and phasing out the use of petrol cars in city centres by 2050."
It would appear that short-haul flights across Europe could be replaced by high-speed rail to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport by 60% over the next 40 years.
According to the EU, Heathrow's congestion problems could be eased by cutting domestic and European flights, while demand for new runways could be suppressed by building new rail networks. The EU transport commissioner, Siim Kallas, has announced a series of green transport goals including shifting the majority of flights longer than 300km to rail and phasing out the use of petrol cars in city centres by 2050. "At Heathrow there are no new runways, but we desperately need to increase capacity and you can do this if you reduce short-haul flight connections," said Kallas.
As an aside, HS2 is most definitely not a precursor to the arrival of a Directive requiring it? Yeah, right.........
Erm, excuse me Siim, but what is this "we desperately need to increase capacity at Heathrow"? Ah, silly me! I forgot that any aspect of transport - be that road, rail, air or maritime - is a shared competence under Article 4(g) of the TFEU.
The report continues by stating that:
"Kallas said EU countries needed to reduce the "mass need" for short journeys in petrol and diesel cars. "It is a desirable goal to phase out conventional cars," he said. However, Kallas added that mass adoption of electronic cars also posed problems because major city roads would continue to be clogged by traffic."So we have the laughable situation whereby whilst the need to reduce the "mass need" for short journeys in petrol and diesel cars - and, alternatively, all driving electric-powered cars - it will still mean major city roads continue to be clogged by a mass of cars. Who but a politician could come up with a policy like this?
One final thought for "The Brain of Siim" - with all the turbines that will be needed to produce the electricity for all these trains and cars, will there be any land space for the damn roads and railway tracks - or sea space for vessels to reach our shores?
Yet more 'social-engineering' - EU style
From The Albion Alliance Presents we get news from the "Fifth meeting of European Platform for Roma Inclusion".
Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship:
"the EU Framework is complementary to Member State activities in support of the Roma. Yet it is clear to us that the measures in place so far are not adequate. We must now focus on Roma needs specifically and comprehensively in our national, regional and local policies."
It will be intriguing, to say the least, how our "EU Administration Centre" is going to pass this off as national policy in their aim to further equality and diminish diversity.
The EU Rules - OK!
Big Brother Watch (BBW) posts on the matter of the Intercept Modernisation Programme and in so doing provides all the evidence necessary that the United Kingdom is well and truly under the EU's thumb. Apparently Syed Kamall, Conservative MEP, tabled a question to the European Commission examining the legal basis for the scheme and its conformance with EU law. In his question, Syed asked whether 1) the UK's Intercept Modernisation Programme as described in the Strategic Defence Review would be compatible with EU data protection laws and 2) what steps the Commission intended to take if it was incompatible with EU statues.
BBW posts the response received from the EU Commission:
"The Commission underlines the importance of the protection of the security of citizens in conjunction with a robust protection of civil liberties.
"The ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC protects the right to privacy in the electronic communications sector. It provides that Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the rights, including those concerning confidentiality of communications, when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure within a democratic society to safeguard, inter alia, public security.
"The European Commission is aware that in April 2009 the UK Government consulted on a number of options for maintaining the vital capability of public authorities to use communications data to protect the public.
"In October 2010 the UK Government set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review its intention to continue to build on an existing programme of work to preserve the ability of law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework with its inherent safeguards and oversight.
"The Commission has been informed that the United Kingdom intends to legislate to ensure that it can avail of adequate communications capabilities and that the legislative approach will be compatible with the UK governments approach towards civil liberties. Details of this legislation would be announced in the UK Parliament in due course.
"The Commission will follow this process closely to ensure that the legislation that will be proposed will be consistent with the obligations of the UK under EU law, including that relating to data protection." (emphasis mine)
Not only in the area of electronic communications, but also in just about every area of life we are subject to rules emanating from the same source, namely Brussels. Still our political elite maintain that Parliament is "sovereign"; that they are the guardians of our country and society - and yet still they maintain that membership of the EU is 'for the good of the country'!
The more Cameron opens his mouth.........
James Kirkup has an article in todays Daily Telegraph in which he writes:
"Adopting the Alternative Vote system would do "permanent damage to British democracy," says David Cameron."
and:
"The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system"
For heaven's sake! What about the permanent damage to our democracy that Cameron's insistence of remaining a member of the European Union has done? As an aside - not that I am in favour of AV - what pray is wrong with a second-rate voting system when we have second-rate politicians?
In yesterday's Sunday Telegraph Janet Daley had what might be termed a coruscating article on the Conservative Party, making the point - amongst others - that:
"There is no longer a clear sense of basic common purpose – of fundamental driving principle – at the heart of Conservatism. Who the party speaks for, and what it stands for, is a matter of confusion and contradiction."
By abandoning the belief that, as Janet Daley says, the Conservative Party stood for Queen and Country; free-market economics and self-improvement; that it represented the striving, sometimes vulgar but always determined and hard-working upwardly mobile classes, Cameron has managed to take a giant leap backwards.
Why has Cameron done this? By trying to "do a Blair" and appeal to all people on all matters; by trying to mix two opposite factors which envariably results in a 'damp squib', resulting in his foregoing his principles simply to enter Number 10.
As a Conservative and a politician, the man is a fake and a coward; illustrated by the speed with which he ran away from a debate offered to him by UKIP Witney, on the benefits (or not) of membership of the European Union., obviously fearing a face-to-face public meeting with Nigel Farage.
Afterthought: Daley also makes the good point that with an election due in a matter of weeks, all of a sudden the politicians are on bended knee to us and begging for our votes. It is about time they got on bended knee every time they wished to do something in our name!
A Great Idea?
One of my commenters (and of many other blogs), Tom Tom, raised an idea on a post of mine that dealt with the fact that as citizens of the EU there is no separate provision whereby a person can remain a United Kingdom national but renounce citizenship of the European union - a comment which I reproduce in full:
"You know I think a political party needs to electrify an election campaign by pledging to Decriminalise the TV Licence so criminal Law is no longer employed - or to Abolish It. It would throw the BBC into such a loop that the Party would get so much coverage, yet every attack by the BBC would be so apparent to voters as self-interest. I bet with current Politikverdrossenheit (tired of politicians) such a party would boost its support. On such a peg it could hang issues such as Lord Patten being an EU Pensioner tied to the EU. It could hang matters like the BBC being funded by EU funds. It could look at people on unemployment pay funding £300,000 pa newsreaders or people like Alan Yentob. It could ask why the Eu wants Post Offices privatised, railways etc but not State Broadcasters. It would be a super election issue."
In a later comment he said:
"You have to move on the TV Licence quickly. Germany has replaced it from 2013 with a Household Levy whether you have TV or not....I could imagine that becoming an EU policy to fund a chain of EU State Broadcasters."
Another 'winning' idea for UKIP to adopt?
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Not a lot of people know that...........
GoodnightVienna, CallingEngland, has a post on the Localism Bill/Maastricht Treat - one that, as ever, is a really good read. Whilst noting all the denials about there being no intention to create an EU military force, the position of HRH, etc, on a personal level the following extract is extremely important:
"Hansard 1st Feb 1993 - citizenship of the EU not renouncable:Our politicians would do well to note that, on a personal basis, I was not asked about this; I did not give my permission for this to happen; as far as I am concerned my citizenship is mine, no-one else's; I will decide to which country or state I wish that citizenship to apply - so perhaps said politicians and the EU may wish to "Foxtrot Oscar"!
"For as long as a person is a British national, that person will be a European citizen, under the terms of the treaty and the Bill. As was said earlier, if someone wishes to renounce British nationality, certain
Column 35
consequences will follow ; but there is no separate provision whereby a person can remain a United Kingdom national but renounce citizenship of the European union."
You chose the damn job!
A report in the Guardian 'headlines' that:
"Third of MPs say they considered quitting over long hours in Commons.", with a sub-heading: "Mumsnet poll show parliamentarians lament late nights spent voting on legislation and say the system is still not family friendly."
Where to start?
1. If a job is accepted without fully investigating the 'up' side and the 'down' side, then that person only has him/herself to blame.
2. Women have a choice in life that men generally do not, namely to pursue a career or raise a family.
3. Of the 101 MPs surveyed, were these new MPs, veteran MPs, all female or a fair section of all 'classes'?
4. Harriet Harman would, it seems, like a three-day week - and no doubt wants a pay rise to accompany that?
5. Perhaps if politicians decided that it was not necessary for them to control every aspect of our lives, really did devolve the responsibility for much of our daily lives to us and local authorities, perhaps they would indeed only need to work three days a week, if that - and take a bloody pay (and property) cut into the bargain.
And if that sounds chauvanistic to anyone, especially female MPs - tough! Life is tough and the first lesson learnt is that invariably one cannot have one's cake and eat it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
