Non partisan comment on the EU and our local government
Jun 23rd, 2009 by Ken
This is absolutely disgusting and people try to argue we do not live on a police state. Well you do if ask them to identify themselves which they are supposed to do or take photos.
These people were detained for fours days before the police dropped all charges. Charges for what?
Jun 21st, 2009 by Ken
I thought it might a good idea to look into the expense claims of my own local MP Phillip Dunn Ludlow Conservative.
The last time I met him he was doing a run around his constituency and stopped to say he could not possible go by my house without giving me a chance to shout at him, reference to the few letters on EU matters we had exchanged no doubt. He was driving an old van and complained that he had to be careful where he went because he could not select reverse and was worried about getting stuck somewhere.
He does give the clear impression of running everything on a very tight budget; no doubt due to the fact that before he stood for election he ran a business in Ludlow.
On the expense front there is nothing untoward to report, in fact just the opposite, although he lives in Ludlow he does not claim for a second home he has a flat in London but does not charge the taxpayer for it. His main expenditure covers staffing and research. Mr Dunne claimed £26,712.29 for staffing (secretarial and research). Stationery bills came to £5,832.72 (considering the number of times he has contacted me with questionnaire and polls, I am surprised that this figure is al low as it is) Computing, communications equipment printers, advertising web design and management, travel and photography another £11,517.81.
As my local paper, the Shropshire Star, says Ludlow’s MP lived up to his previous claims that he is the lowest-cost MP in the county.
On top of that from an EUsceptic point of view Mr Dunn voted the right way on all the Lisbon Treaty votes in parliament, so here we have an honest MP who runs an efficient offices and does not make unwarranted claims to boost his income at the expense of the tax payer.
My only hope is that at the next election I can show my appreciation by actually voting for him.
But in reality it looks as though that will depend very much on when the next election is called, if it called before the Lisbon Treaty ratified then there is a clear unequivocal commitment from the Conservative leadership to allow us little people a referendum.
If however Mandelson keeps Brown in place until after the Irish vote in the autumn, as many suspect he will, then gets rid of him and the new Labour leader holds of calling an election until next spring, this very likely will give them enough time to get Lisbon in place. Which is the name of the game for Mandelson and his federalist chums in Europe, and everything must me sacrificed to this end including the labour party.
The Conservative position then becomes much less clear, the previous unqualified commitment on a referendum has now been downgraded to unless the treaty has been ratified and if it has “we will not let matter rest there”! And Ken Clarke has just unilaterally downgraded the “we will not let matter rest there” we will negotiate to return some powers on employment. The Conservative leadership is thus fudging the issue and asking us to take them on trust, however do to past experiences they should understand that they have used up the whole supply of trust.
Talking of trust does anyone else not think is strange that Ken Clarke remained silent and out of the way until after the local elections and the EU elections were out of the way, but since then he has suddenly repapered to re-interpret and downgrade the whole Conservative EU policy and no one from the leadership, not Hague, not Cameron have contradicted him?
So to Mr Dunn congratulations you are obviously a man to watch, an honest hard working, listening representative for the people of Ludlow. Please pass on the message to the leaders of your party, we the voters want a clear commitment on Conservative policy with regard to the Lisbon Treaty.
Update:
Apparently Cameron has told MPs in private not to listen to Clarke, that he as not changed policy on the treaty, perhaps he would also like to tell the public and officially clarify what the party policy will be if, as looks very likely, the treaty is ratified before he gets into No 10? This would be extremely helpful and might if he were to say there would a referendum in any event -ratified or not - hasten the end of this administration, when Mandelson realises that no matter how long they hold on it will make no difference in the end.
Unless he does make such a promise it is increasingly looking as if the Conservative leadership is very much in cahoots with the EU federalists and are just making EUsceptic noises but have no intention of actually doing anything serious. On a similar subject - ID cards- the party is quite clear that they will scrap the scheme when they take over the reigns of government they are not saying if it is already in place we will not let matter rest there.
Jun 18th, 2009 by Ken
Duncan MacKenzie from the Campaigns and Communications team of Campaign for Better Transport, “a Charitable foundation” They receive £79,639 a year of Council Taxpayers money via London Councils. They also receive funding from Transport for London, sent out the following email:
We’ve been approached by a campaigner in Nottingham who’s alerted us that the Conservatives, who have just won control of the local council, have said they’re going to cancel the planned tram extension there. So to help, we’ve been wondering if we can find other examples of things the Tories are doing which are bad for sustainable public transport. Can you tell us if they’ve done or said anything in your area that’s grabbed your attention about local bus, tram or rail travel, planned roads, or airports? We’re thinking of ‘negative’ things – things that show that they’re hostile to good public transport. Perhaps also, what they do and say locally can give us some idea of how they’ll really behave in government.
When you tell us what they’ve been up to near you, we’ll try to put that in the national picture and see if we can build up a profile of their local actions and policies across the country.
Please send all your comments to me….
After complaints about the bias and blatant partisanship from a government funded charity the Campaign for Better Transport has offered a clarification. No need really as the content of the email makes it perfectly clear that the CBT is looking for dirt on the conservatives however.
Good morning,
This is an email to clarify a note we sent round yesterday asking for examples of transport policies being made or considered at a local level, because I realise the note may have come across as party political.
The email referred to the Conservative Party because in the elections earlier this month the Conservatives gained control of 30 of the 34 councils. It should instead have asked for examples of ‘council’ actions or thinking. Because of the dominance of the Conservatives at the council level, the term Conservatives was used almost as shorthand. It should not have been. We are interested in information about local council transport decisions, not solely Conservative
council decisions.
We are a non-partisan organisation. We are interested in securing good transport policies and programmes, not in party political issues. We work with all political parties to improve public transport. I’m sorry if yesterday’s email gave you a different impression.
I hope this email clarifies things and am happy to take any questions.
Only one question really when are Duncan MacKenzie and his boss Communications Director Estelle Taylor going to be sacked for misuse of public money.
Anyone wishing to complain to the Charities Commission can find details here
Jun 16th, 2009 by Ken
I have been waiting for the leadership of the Conservative party to set the record strait with regards to party policy on the Lisbon treaty.
It is clear that if the Treaty has not been ratified we have been promised a referendum by Mr Cameron, what was not clear until the weekend is exactly what the position will be in the very likely event that the treaty has been ratified.
The carefully constructed “We wont let matters rest there” is not exactly a clear statement of policy intent, more like a fudge of the first order but nonetheless a fudge that both Cameron and Hague has stuck to persistently.
But now thankfully Ken Clarke has either;
“reinvented unilaterally Conservative Party policy on the whole of the Lisbon Treaty and European policy.” (Bill Cash MP)
or
“just let the cat out of the bag. The Conservatives have no intention of holding a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and all their promises during the European election campaign about holding one can now be seen to be sheer, brass-necked dishonesty.” (Nigel Farage MEP)
There will be no referendum and the renegotiation for a massive return of powers has been reduced to discussing the division of competences between member states and the European Union about one or two trifling issues such as employment law.
According to the Guardian
Kenneth Clarke softens Tory line on Lisbon treaty
A future Tory government would accept the Lisbon treaty and concentrate instead on repatriating powers, mainly in the field of employment, the shadow business secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said yesterday… A Tory spokesman said Clarke had not changed party policy. “As Ken Clarke explained, if the Lisbon treaty is ratified and in force across the EU by the time of the election of a Conservative government, we would not let matters rest there. We have consistently made clear that the return of social and employment legislation to UK control would be a major goal for a Conservative government.”
So there we have it after the totally unacceptable Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, the major goal of a new Conservative administration would be the return of social and employment legislation to UK control.
Wow I am so impressed! I think I will still vote UKIP though and hope enough of us do to at least deny Cameron and his Fudging Europhiles a very large majority in the British Parliament.
Jun 6th, 2009 by Ken
The Telegraph tells us Lord Mandelson charged to the rescue and made up for 15 years of hurt and for his trouble he is now effectively the deputy prime minister, we also have another paid up and paid by EU backer in the cabinet in the form of Mrs Kinnock.
But says the Telegraph Mandelson did not do this without a reason (Their man was close to the edge.)
Their man rather begs the question who is the their! And more to the point why is the British Prime minister anybodies man. I have long though and still believe Brown and those controlling him will try to hang on as long as possible, no matter what damage is done to the Labour party or the country for the simply reason that if Brown were to go it would very likely be the end of the Lisbon Treaty. As another change of leadership would very likely trigger a general election which Labour know full well they will lose. The name of the game now is to keep the Conservatives out of power until the treaty is delivered which means until after the Irish have voted in the Autumn.
I really do hope I am wrong and the Labour MPs seeing the writing on the wall and hoping to salvage as much as possible from the wreckage will oust Brown.
Apr 23rd, 2009 by Ken
From England Expects
Think about it, what political party would go into a European Election campaign seriously highlighting the importance of the EU in the creation of legislation? After all only a year or so later the same people (MEPs often vanish during national elections – curious) are standing up infront of the same electorate trying to persuade them into voting again, but this time for national Government.
“Vote for me” says important political type
“Why?” says vaguely interested punter.
“Because I can change the world into a better place”
“No you can’t” says punter.
“What do you mean?” says politico, clearly hurt and aggrieved, “vote for me and I will turn water into wine, or sand into sugar”
“Rubbish” laughs punter, “You said only in June 2009 that the EU is really important these days and that nigh on 85% of new laws and regulations are written there. You said that in reality these days if you want to change stuff you have to be involved at a European level. You said that all trade matters, all agricultural matters, almost all environmental matters, many training matters, well most policy is now run from Brussels that was why we had to vote for the European elections. So tell me what are you for Mr Prime Minister?”
Apr 1st, 2009 by Ken
DIRECTIVE ON THE ALLOCATION OF INTAKES OF FRESH AIR
To be known as “The Fresh Air” Directive
(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)
Directive of the 17th March 1998 AN/UTH/R1
This Directive aims at reducing disparities between the levels of density of air in the various Regions, and levelling the flow of said air, especially over the least favoured Regions or Islands, including urban and rural areas, with special attention to flows of
air, underground.
There will be free movement of air at all times, provided that the EU certificate for “airworthiness” has been granted.
It may be necessary to apply the ‘closer cooperation’ idea by building a “fourth pillar” thus enabling the “Fresh Air” Directive to develop into an area of freedom and security and justice.
The said ‘air’ shall enjoy “transparency” at all times. The decision to use it shall be taken as closely to the ‘citizen’ as possible.
Only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ will citizens breathe without special documentation, and Single Market rules shall apply at all times. Countries applying Schengen shall stamp the “fresh air” as it travels through their borderless controls.The said ‘air’ shall enjoy “transparency” at all times.
Our citizens shall enjoy “pooling” their Nation State’s ‘fresh air’ by working in close cooperation until this exciting integration process is complete.
Article 1. Each adult citizen may take a maximum of 45 breaths per minute, at the same time enjoying the freedom of exhaling freely; and at will; providing the exhaled air is kept separate from the allocation of ‘fresh’ air.
Article 2. Should there be any reason for requiring a quicker intake of air, e.g., exercising, running, jogging, dancing, and then a notice may be placed in the Official Journal of the European Union. The lowest tender must be accepted even if this extra fresh air is to be collected from Finland; it of course, must be collected personally.
Article 3. Should a weekend break in the Member States own country be taken, there will be a need of a document for the transfer of fresh air from the applicants town, and the said air to be bottled up and transferred to the Region of his/her choice with the usual air passports which must be affixed to the left hand side of the round container.
Article 4. Should a longer break be required for example, in Spain for a two-week period, provisions must be made to stop a glut of air collecting in the gap made by the body of the Member’s temporary absence, by allowing the member’s family to take two breaths instead of the obligatory ‘one’ while the Member is away.
Article 5. Should Article 4 create a problem with a shortage of air in the chosen holiday resort, which left unattended, causes an added altercation of some “hot air” being created, see Art 6.
Article 6. There will be a monitoring Centre set up on the Isle of Sorrento, its task to combat the “heating up and misuse of fresh air” An amount of 700 million euros will be set aside for this project. The Centre will be known as the “Hot and Cold In-depth Treatment Centre”. (HACIT)
Article 7. Special training for persons running this Centre will take place each year in Florida, where they will be taught how to “hold their breath” which will be an essential requirement after all the gasps of air wasted when learning of the fantastic salaries offered for this important “redistribution of air” job.
Article 8. A new spy satellite system will be used to combat against the ‘smuggling’ of air.
Article 9. Should anyone have the misfortune to come across “pockets of air” (air pockets), which are strictly illegal, these must be reported to the authorities at once. On inspection in the past, these air pockets have usually been found to contain absolutely nothing. This unfair competition will not be tolerated.
Article 10. “Aero Bars of Chocolate”, the eating of these aero-bars may have to be stopped until a way can be found in which the chocolate can be eaten without swallowing of the air contained in the “bubble”. Air is for breathing purposes only—-not for eating. Heavy fines will be imposed on any person found surreptitiously nibbling one of these bubbles of air, surrounded by chocolate.
Article 1. Should air turn “blue” at any time, it should be discarded immediately along with this Directive.
The expression “As free as the air we breath” will be banned as from the Date this directive is applicable.
Whereas the Kyoto Protocol has been accepted by Member States, the “Fresh Air” directive will be included in the polluter pays procedure and for the very first time it is suggested that a payment for the total number of breaths of air, taken over a twelve month period, for each person will be deducted from a person’s pay-packet, direct to Brussels. There will of course be a small addition to that, to account for those who are not in work.
Whereas it may be difficult to work out the correct sum for each person, the first payment will be in the year 2201.
Hot Air, emanating from the European Union Commission will, of course, qualify for special exemption.
This Directive is applicable to all Member States and will come into force 1st April 2002. There is no “hidden Agenda” in this Directive (Well, only a little one!)
Anne Palmer.
Mar 31st, 2009 by Ken
Open Europe informs us that Europe Minister Caroline Flint admits she has not read the Lisbon Treaty
During questions yesterday in Parliament, Europe Minister Caroline Flint admitted that she had not read the Lisbon Treaty in its entirety.
Following a series of vague answers on the implications of the Treaty for European defence, Shadow Europe Minister Mark Francois asked, “Has the Minister read the elements of the Lisbon Treaty that relate to defence?”. Ms. Flint replied, “I have read some of it but not all of it.” She went on to say: “I have been briefed on some of it.”
As well as leading calls for the Treaty to be ratified, back in December, Caroline Flint claimed that the Irish voted ‘no’ due to “misunderstanding” of the Treaty.
In a press release, Mark Francois responded saying, “It’s wonderfully honest of the Minister for Europe to admit that she hasn’t actually read the renamed EU Constitution. It’s not every day that someone will admit they haven’t read the most important document for their job. Her astonishing admission does leave some questions. How does she know if the Treaty’s good for Britain if she hasn’t read it? How could she lecture the Irish that they’d only rejected the Lisbon Treaty because they didn’t understand it?”
Parliamentary Committee debate
Later there was another interesting point raised under; what legal, treaty basis was the European Defence Agency set up? The Minster for Europe did not even know that! which is surprising considering Britain is a member.
In fact the EDA will be set up by the Lisbon treaty, if it is ratified not by the Nice Treaty as the minister claimed.
So we are member of the European Defence Agency which has no legal basis, so much for those who try to argue the unification of the EU is stalled and nothing has happened since Maastricht! far from it as it is moving forward so fast it is even outpacing the legal power of the treaties.
Mr. Francois: The documents refer on a number of occasions to the European Defence Agency, which has already been set up. What is the legal, treaty basis under which it was created?
Caroline Flint: I will seek to answer that point shortly.
Mr. Francois: The EDA is referred to a number of times. What lies behind the question is some controversy about the fact that the EDA was set up without a formal treaty base. Can the Minister explain the Government’s position on that?
Caroline Flint: Clearly, our support for the EU security defence policy is not about supporting a European army but about providing support where we can collectively come together and have an impact on security and defence issues. To that end, we support the activities we have undertaken with the European Union and would seek to do more. We do not see that as being in conflict with anything we might do nationally, so we do not see the problems that the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting in relation to some of the structures and other elements that have been set up but are not operational. Operation stays with member states when they take part. Strategically, they need to have better planning and coherent submissions that we undertake and take part in.
Mr. Francois: There is a lesson for the Minister here. If she is going to come before a Committee, she should do her homework. After all that boilerplate, can she just tell us under what basis this organisation of which Britain is now a member was created?
Caroline Flint: I think it is the Nice treaty that we work under, in terms of the European Union. If we go to Lisbon, we will be under the Lisbon treaty. That is the treaty that is being reformed and amended. That is how the EU operates.
Mr. Francois: The Minister is quite right that the Lisbon treaty—which I have read—formally constitutes the European Defence Agency, but is she saying that the EDA was constituted under the treaty of Nice, because I am not sure that that is correct?
Caroline Flint: I will verify that fact for the hon. Gentleman.
Mar 31st, 2009 by Ken
This from the letter section of the Western Morning News
THERE has been a profound miscarriage of justice with regard to Charlie McBride and Charles Jnr, fishermen from Northern Ireland who have been sentenced to two and three months in jail, respectively, for “contempt of court”.
The McBrides, owners of the fishing vessel Arcane N907, were convicted of under-declaring prawn and whitefish landings from fishing trips in the Irish Sea in 2007, in contravention of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy, and fined a total of £385,774. Defra then called in the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), using legislation to enable the courts to confiscate the assets of serious criminals such as major drug dealers.
The McBrides have not been sent to jail for contravening fishing laws, but for contempt of court after trying to raise funds to pay off their extortionate fines by borrowing against their assets (boat, business and houses) “frozen” by SOCA. Apparently, there is no appeal against the sentences.
We don’t see bank managers going to jail for losing billions, but we treat fishermen who might be guilty of minor infringements against the thoroughly discredited CFP as super-serious criminals.
Readers who are as enraged as I am can sign a petition on the Prime Minister’s website
Peter Wyatt
Co-chair UKIP Fishing Policy Committee
Re Peter Wyatt Co-chair UKIP Fishing Policy Committee, “Fishing Injustice”.
This matter should be challenged legally as it is strictly against our Constitution. It is indeed an injustice. In the Proceeds of Crime Act for nowhere does it mention the catching of fish but it does mention re Drugs, Drug trafficking, Money Laundering, and a criminal lifestyle etc. However, I noticed that although confiscation was initially available only in drug trafficking cases, it was extended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 to cover non-drug indictable offences and specified summary offences.
It seems the fish in the sea are freer to go about their business than are human beings. This matter should indeed be challenged, unless the people of this Country want foreigners to make our laws forever.
I had in mind that Judges have to look to EU Treaties, yet nowhere could I find the EU pressing for such extortionate fines and loss of livelihood and or homes for these men. Judges also have to be aware of our Constitution especially the Magna Carta and our Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and it was here that I became a little perplexed. Our Constitution (Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 makes clear, “That excessive bail ought not to be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. These are from our Constitution, the law above the law, the foundations upon which all other laws are or should, be built.
Clause 29 Magna Carta makes clear that “for a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a Royal Court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood”.
These fishermen may have broken the law, but what did they take? Was it some hard work done by other men, did they steal a patent? Something that deprived people of their livelihood? Something that belonged to some-one poor? No, they took something provided by nature or by the good Lord above, it came free without guarantee or payment required. The fish certainly had the freedom to roam the world and they did not need permission from the EU, a pass-port, visa or our Government to do so. Whose waters were they swimming in? The UK’s or EU waters because the British people still believe the waters around our shore and inland belong to the United Kingdom for they have never been asked if they want these sovereign waters (fish included) to belong to the European Union, and I have not seen any recent transfer of sovereignty to say so..
Anne Palmer, Wolverhampton
Mar 30th, 2009 by Ken
The fluff of parliamentary reporting, are we really interested in the fact that the Home Sectaries husband watched two porn films last April and is it really that important within the context of the amount these politicians are costing us as part of a failing institution, that they then claimed the ten pounds cost of the films from the taxpayer?
In one way yes it is an important issue because it signals the general divide between them and us shows that these people have no respect for the general population their high positions or the trust they hold and they lack any perspective of moral values.
From their reasonably comfortable positions in terms of their own safety when they are probably not that clear about the financial threats facing the rest of us they take an approach to privacy which puts the right of safety above a pretty fundamental right for us to be safe from government interference.
I think people’s fundamental civil liberty is that we are kept safe from the power of the state to arbitrarily impose its laws and its theoretical morality on the people.
The first freedom we have is the right to life and then the right to sustain and protect that life, like Tony Blair before her the home sectary Jacqui Smith seems to believe that a basic right of peoples protection from state power can be eroded under the pretext of ensuring the state has the power to “protect us” from ourselves.
These politicians are taking away people’s rights and privacy when it comes to basic protections against the state, in order to undermine our democracy and values that we hold dear in this country
Thus whilst the media are up in arms about ten quid spent on porn films yesterday The Telegraph reports that Jacqui Smith, has launched an angry tirade against “comfortable” civil liberties campaigners who fail to appreciate the extent of the security risk.
Asked for her view of civil liberties campaigners, she said:
“I get exasperated about people who are in reasonably comfortable positions in terms of their personal safety, who probably aren’t completely clear about the threats, and who take an approach to rights which puts the right of privacy above a pretty fundamental right for us to be safe.
“And they do that from a comfortable position where they’re not actually responsible for bringing down crime and tackling terrorism.”
“I think people’s fundamental civil liberty is that they are kept safe from terrorism and serious crime.
“I said the first day I arrived in this job that my responsibility was to protect this country, its borders, its communities, precisely so that people could be free to live their lives as effectively as possible. That is the first freedom that I want people to have – the freedom that comes from security.
“People are trying to take away people’s lives and when it comes to terrorism, to undermine our democracy and values that we hold dear in this country.
Jacqui Smith is right people could be free to live their lives as “effectively” as possible without having to worry about the introduction of a police state by the very people we elect to protect our rights and freedoms.
This from The Anglo Saxon Chronicle
Mar 27th, 2009 by Ken
It would seem that Clive Mathews is trying to argue that those of us who question the EU are simply nutty conspiracy theorists who base our abhorrence of this construct on 50 year old quotes of long dead fathers of the EU.
As I said in a previous post that argument is the classic straw man, as we do not base our eurscetisism on the plans of Monnet and Shuman or what they said about the creation of a United States of Europe . The clear fact is we do not need to do so as we have so much evidence that confirms the only direction of the EU is towards further and continual unification of the member states. See sidebar for more modern quotes to the same effect perhaps these will be more acceptable to Clive ?
For goodness sake Clive just read the preamble of the treaties these make the case clearly enough even for a dedicate Europhobe to understand, the preambles set out clearly the intentions of the project, to try to argue that there is some other end position in the face of this is to bury your head in the sand.
RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with
the establishment of the European Communities,DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history,
their culture and their traditions,DESIRING to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the
institutions so as to enable them better to carry out, within a single institutional
framework, the tasks entrusted to them,RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to
establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions
of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a single and
stable currency,DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into
account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the
accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental
protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration
are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the
progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence
in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European
identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe
and in the world,RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and
security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in
accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union,RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples
of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity,IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,
Clive says all he sees is chaos, when all he is really seeing is nothing more than evidence of an uncompleted task, there is nothing in the apparent chaos that point to a different road the direction is clear. I do not see that anyone would gain much by waiting to see the end result that would be to ignore the reality of what is happening today. Rather let us see some real moves away from the endpoint so clearly illustrated in the preambles.
Clive raises the idea that the founding fathers of the Project have no influence on today`s EU but then argues that the principle of subsidiarity as evidence of there being a different end point on the table.
Unfortunately given his argument he seems to have missed the fact that the principal of subsidiarity was the ineffectual political device invented by lifelong 
communist known as the Godfather of the project Altiero Spinelli and has only procedural and symbolic significance, in other words its only use is one of propaganda.
John Bercow MP said of the Principal
At best, it is a sop to those concerned with the preservation of self government; at worst, it is a cloak which seeks to disguise the ever increasing arrogation of powers to the institutions of the European Union.
He then goes on to ask
What does the Article say and what does it really mean ?
In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance of the principle of subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.”
Two objections to this immediately arise. First, the Article is not saying that action will be taken at the lowest level, as its supporters claim, but rather that the Community shall act if it judges it necessary to do so.
Secondly, if there is a dispute between the European Union and a Member State as to which should be empowered to act, it is justiciable by the European Court of Justice. It is not an impartial arbiter but a body which is committed to European integration and which prides itself on a ‘dynamic’ approach to EU law.
In the Court’s hands, application of the law has often been replaced by its invention. This hardly inspires confidence in the likely efficacy of subsidiarity.
Moreover, it can be argued that the notion of subsidiarity, far from being a tool of decentralisation, is in fact an admission that powers rest with the European state and that it will decide which of them it delegates.Anyone tempted to dismiss such a notion as the paranoia of euro sceptics should remember the verdict of the former President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, as long ago as 1991. Referring to subsidiarity, he said “It only makes sense in a federal approach.”
Yet here we see in answer to a simple question which of the Treaties have returned a single power to the member states all Clive can come up with is Altiero Spinelli`s confedence trick, so far from proving a break with the past he actually enforces the relevance of the Founding Fathers of the project to the EU we see today.
Mar 27th, 2009 by Ken
The Irish Times is reporting that Taoiseach Brian Cowen has admitted that the Irish Government was not in a position to report “sufficient progress” to the Dáil on the guarantees sought from the EU on the Lisbon Treaty.
So they have agreed to a new referendum based on these guarantees but cannot tell the Irish people exactly what those mean because they do not know, interesting!
In the meantime this by email from Anthony Coughlan explains the changes Lisbon will introduce to the voting weights in the Council and the relitive number of MEPs.
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Web-site: nationalplatform .org
Thursday 26 March 2009
Why Germany is urging “humility” on us and a Yes vote to Lisbon
Last week the German Ambassador said that a second No vote to Lisbon would have “horrific consequences” for Ireland.
On Tuesday the German Social Democrat spokesman on European affairs said that any economic assistance to Ireland would require “greater humility” from Dublin, a renewed commitment to the EU from Irish voters in a Lisbon Two referendum, and a better appreciation of “the common German and Irish interest” in continuing European integration.
Why this German anxiety over Lisbon?
One obvious reason is that the Lisbon Treaty would hugely advantage Germany, the EU’s largest Member State, by moving EU law-making to a primarily population basis and abolishing the weighted vote system for making EC/EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty.
By basing EU law-making primarily on population size, Lisbon would double Germany’s voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers from its present 8% under the Nice Treaty rules to 17%. France’s vote would go from 8% to 13%, Britain’s and Italy’s from their current 8% to 12% each, while Ireland’s voting weight would be halved from 2% to 0.8% (Art.16 TEU).
Under the present Nice Treaty arrangements Germany, France, Britain and Italy have 29 votes each in making EU laws and Ireland has 7 votes. An EU law requires 255 votes out of 345 and at least half the Member States have to vote in favour to make up those 255 votes. A “blocking minority” is 91 votes: that is, 345 minus 255 plus 1.
By contrast, under Lisbon a new European law would require the support of 55% of the Member States, i.e.15 out of 27, so long as the 15 make up 65% of the aggregate EU population. Germany has four times Ireland’s voting weight now: 29 votes as against 7. By basing votes on population size Lisbon would thereby give Germany 20 times Ireland’s voting weight, with its 82 million people as against Ireland’s 4.3.
France, Britain and Italy would each have some 15 times Ireland’s voting weight on a population basis, compared to their four times now.
Germany and France between them have nearly one-third of the EU’s total population. Under the proposed Lisbon Treaty rules Germany and France would need only two other countries to vote with them to be able to block any EU law they did not like.
Giving Germany and the other Big States more of a say in EU law-making is what German Ambassador Christian Pauls really means when he says Lisbon would make the EU more “efficient”!
If Lisbon goes through and gives Germany and the other Big States such an increase in their power, how long - realistically speaking - do people think Ireland’s 12.5% corporation tax rate would last, as compared to Germany’s 30%?
How long would it be before the EU imposes its own income tax, sales tax or property tax on us - which would be permitted for the first time under Lisbon’s Article 311 TFEU and which Germany and France are likely to push for once the Council of Ministers would obtain the legal power ?
In the European Parliament when Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, Germany had 36 seats as against 10 for Ireland - 3.6 times as much. Under Lisbon, Germany would have 96 MEPs as against 12 for Ireland - 8 times as much.
The political reality is that there is now a race on in time between the ratification of Lisbon, which would greatly increase the powers of Germany, France and the Brussels Commission in the EU, and the advent to office of a Conservative Government in Britain by spring next year at the latest.
Conservative policy is to hold a referendum on Lisbon in the UK and recommend a No vote to it to the British people - so long as we Irish are not bullied and bamboozled into reversing our No vote before then, thereby bringing Lisbon into force for all 27 EU States before Mr Gordon Brown’s Government loses office.
By standing by last year’s No to Lisbon, we would thereby be opening the way to enabling our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland to have a vote also on this important Treaty.
(Signed)
Anthony Coughlan
Director
Mar 25th, 2009 by Ken
The important point to remember about Jean Monnet is that as one of the early major promoters of a unified Europe, without any shadow of doubt he fully supported the aims and beliefs of the founding fathers of the European Project. These were that Europe should become one nation state along the same lines as the United States of America with one overarching federal government.
That Monnet did subscribe to these sentiments is not an issue; some proof of that with these quotes of Monnet.
“There is no future for the people of Europe other than in union.” — Jean Monnet
“There is no real peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on a basis of national sovereignty. (…) They must have larger markets. Their prosperity is impossible, unless the States of Europe form themselves in a European Federation.” — Jean Monnet (1943)
As the peoples of the member states would never have agreed to creating a unified Europe at one stroke, the plan was to create a unified Europe by small steps each progressively adding to the creation of a single political entity of the United States of Europe. This was all clearly set out by Robert Schuman in the Declaration of 9 May 1950 when he made it clear that European Unity would not be achieved by one major step but a series of much smaller seemingly unconnected moves, but all with the eventual destination of a united Europe
“Through the consolidation of basic production and the institution of a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and the other countries that join; this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation, imperative for the preservation of peace.”
“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity”
The French put paid to the political integration plans of Monnet and Shuman when the European Defence Community (EDC) was rejected by the French National Assembly in August 1954.
It was then that Monnet developed the gradualist approach for constructing European unity which became known as the Monnet Method, here the idea was to build political unity through the vehicle of trade and economic methods.
Thus Monnet`s misquote;
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
Epitomises the aims and the methods to be employed in order to bring about a united Europe, the project born in secrecy was to be pursued by the same devious clandestine methods because that would be the only way it would be possible. Hence misdirection and deceitfulness were to be the watchwords for the creation of this new Unified Europe.
Because the eventual aim of the project was a united Europe all the systems were designed to eventually become a full government structure, all the foundations were put in place initially, with the clear intention of building on them by gradually transferring power from the member states to the central organisation. Thus we have a whole series of European Treaties, each one transferring some power away from the member states governments, each one tightening the grip on unity, each one progressively making it harder for a member state to function in isolation.
The misdirection and deceitfulness continues to this day as the argument now being advanced is that OK the Founding Fathers might well have envisioned a united federal Europe like the USA back in the 1950s but that was then, as it happens things have turned out differently, we now have a Europe very unlike that which was planed.
This argument of a disparate EU relies on the as yet unfinished projects such as the currency, the Schengen agreement, ect. Thus proposing these unfinished projects as proof of a different end point of the Project than that which was originally envisioned. In reality all these show is that the project is not complete at this point in time, rather than a different vision because there simply is not a different vision of the EU on the table. The British Conservative party like to talk a lot about a different settlement but in reality the only way to achieve that would be to leave the EU, and that is something they are not prepared to countenance.
This theme has recently been advanced again by Clive Mathews and this time he uses the hook of the above Monnet`s misquote, which it is claimed allows Euro sceptics to justify the ongoing belief in the veracity of the idea behind the belief
and
Anyway, even though the “Jean Monnet said it so it must be true” line of argument of the eurosceptic types convinced that the superstate is the EU’s final destination is utterly thwarted by the fact that a) Monnet didn’t actually say most of the things they attribute to him.
The problem with this argument is that it is your typical straw man, in that we “eurosceptic types” do not base our argument on what Monnet said but on what we can see happening. Take Monnet out of the equation and you can still see an overarching system of European Government in the process of being constructed almost on a daily basis.
We already know the EU was envisioned to become one single state, that was Federal in nature, this point is also raised in the post;
Ah, the F-word… Federalism to a eurosceptic is like the proverbial red rag to a bull (despite the key attribute of a federation being, erm… the self-governing nature of the component states, with the central federal government’s powers often being highly limited - but sssh!)
The self governing nature of component states?
But under the control and at the direction of the central Brussels Government, in fact the only way we could claim to be at all self governing is to leave the EU. Back to Wikipedia which says
A federation (Latin: foedus, ‘covenant’) is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (”federal”) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.
So the “self-governing nature of the component states” becomes “partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (”federal”) government” but with the self governing bit being decided by the central (”federal”) government.
Of course the other little bit of concern is that which pertains to the constitutionally entrenchment of the limits to the central governments powers, which may not be altered by the central government: a quick peek at the Lisbon treaty shows us that the Treaties and therefore the Constitution can be altered by the central government unilaterally.
Including the Council of ministers as an institution of the central government makes our own ministers part of the new EU´s institutional framework and places them under an obligation to the Union, to promote its values and advance its objectives and serve its interests and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions, and says “The institutions shall practice mutual sincere cooperation.”
The European Council thus becomes in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.
The Treaty places the National Parliaments in a subordinate role in the constitutional structure of the new Union by placing them under an obligation to “contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union”
And also gives the new Union self-empowerment and treaty amendment powers:
The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause where if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union’s policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives.
Also the proposed “Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure” which permits the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union”
The “passerelles” which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters, in criminal matters, in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor, and in a number of other areas.
Rather than proving the aspirations of the funding fathers has not been met and had been displaced with an alternative, all we see is a continuation of the European dream or nightmare depending on your point of view.
We are still a very long way from even producing an alternative to the inevitability of a fully federal EU, this point was made by Dan Hannan who said of the Conservatives attempts to form a new said, block in the EU parliament;
“What this is about is creating a bloc of parties who, instead of wanting to give more and more powers to Brussels, want to push powers down to the lowest possible level. Once you do that you break the cartel, a federal Europe ceases to be inevitable and becomes just one among a series of competing ideas.”
So far there are no competing ideas all we see is a regard action that is bound to fail, until and unless one does emerge and begins to gain credence then what Monnet did not say is still the only game in town, no matter what spin EU adherents wish to put on the present situation.
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
And the only way we will see a different union is if the present one fails and falls apart we can but keep our fingers crossed.
Mar 19th, 2009 by Ken
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Web-site: nationalplatform .org
Wednesday 18 March 2009
Dear Friends,
According to the Irish Times news report below, a meeting is taking place in Brussels today between the entire EU Commission and Mr Martin Territt, Head of the EU Commission Representation in Ireland, to discuss how the Commission can influence Irish opinion in the lead-in to Ireland’s re-run of the Lisbon referendum next October. It is seemingly planned to spend some ¤2 million on advertisements for this purpose
The article is by Jamie Smyth, who is Irish Times’s EU correspondent.
A few weeks ago the Irish Times carried an advertisement from the EU Commission Representation in Ireland seeking tenders for an advertising campaign in this country to “inform” people better about the EU. Accompanying press reports stated that this advertising campaign is to be specially targeted at women and young people over the next few months, as these are groups which predominantly voted No to Lisbon in Ireland’s referendum last June, according to opinion polls.
It is well-known that the EU Commission is itself a highly self-interested party as regards the Lisbon Treaty, for the Treaty, which is a revamped version of the 2004 EU Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch peoples in referendums, would greatly increase the Commission’s powers and functions and would provide it with many new areas of policy for which it would have the exclusive right of initiative as regards proposing European laws - something that must surely outrage any geuine democrat.
In late 2007 ago, in the lead-in to last year’s Lisbon referendum, former Irish Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna and the undersigned complained to Ireland’s statutory Broadcasting Complaints Commission about the EU Commission Office in Dublin spending ¤360,000 on a series of political advertisements on Irish community and local radio stations even though such broadcast advertiments are unlawful in this country, as they are in the UK and various other EU countries.
These EU Commission-sponsored advertisements ostensibly aimed to tell people about the existence of various sources of information on the EU, something that one could not reasonably object to - but they also contained highly loaded and tendentious statements about how much money Ireland had received from the EU over the years, how EU laws had made phone calls and airplane flights cheaper, how the EU had conferred various other benefits on Ireland etc.
These adverts could certainly influence people’s attitutes when it came to voting - that being the criterion Ireland’s Broadcasting Complaints Commission’s uses in deciding whether a broadcast advertisement is “political” or not.
The Broadcasting Complaints Commission upheld our complaint and ruled that the EU Commission’s advertisements were indeed political and as such were effectively encouraging Irish broadcasters to breach the statutory ban on political advertising in this country.
If this complaint had not been made and upheld, one can be confident that the EU Commission Office in Ireland would have gone on to repeat these politically potent advertisements on national radio and TV here
It is quite outrageous from a democratic point of view that the EU Commission and its representative in Dublin, Mr Mertin Territt, should be planning to spend large sums of EU taxpayers’ money on seeking to influence Irish voters to reverse their vote of last June on the Lisbon Treaty in order, inter alia, to increase significantly the power of the EU Commission itself.
We appeal to you to draw this outrageously undemocratic behaviour of the Brussels Commission to the attention of people in your country and in as many other EU countries as possible, so to that they can raise their voices in protest.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Coughlan
Director
________
Irish Times, Saturday 14 March 2009, page 11
Commission to seek ways to help State on Lisbon campaign
Jamie Smyth in Brussels
The European Commission will hold a special meeting next week to determine how it can help the Government campaign to secure a Yes vote in the second Lisbon referendum.All 27 EU commissioners will meet the head of the commission’s Irish representation office, Martin Territt, in Brussels on Wednesday to consider a range of initiatives that will better inform the Irish about Europe and the treaty.
They will discuss the launch of a new publicity campaign designed to inform the Irish public about the merits of EU membership. They are also expected to agree on a high-profile series of visits to the Republic by EU commissioners and commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.
‘One of the lessons the commission and the European Parliament learnt from the first referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was that the pro-Lisbon voices were too often absent from the public debate,’ said a senior commission source, who added that the EU’s most visible institution - the EU’s executive - could not be absent from the debate this time.
The three main EU institutions - the commission, parliamentand council - all took a back seat during the first referendum campaign on the Lisbon Treaty on the advice of the Government, which was concerned their input could hurt the Yes campaign. But there is a growing appreciation in Brussels that a deeply unpopular Govenmrnt will need all the help it can get to persuade the public to change their vote.
The commission is unlikely to propose getting directly involved in the referedum campaign itself, which will remain the primary responsibility of the Government. But it will propose providing information to the public to ensure they understand how Europe plays a role in their everyday life and to clarify points of the treaty that are disputed. A new EU-funded ¤l.8 million publicity campaign in Ireland is due to begin shortly.
Mr Territt is expected to update commissioners on the potential strengh of the No campaign, and particularly the rise of Libertas. He is likely to discuss the changed economic context and how that could affect a second referendum.
EU competition commisisoner Neelie Kroes is likely to be the first member of the EU executive to travel the Republic. EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana is also considering travelling to Ireland next month to talk about European security policy
Mar 7th, 2009 by Ken
I do not quite understand why the today the Times should be revisiting an extremely important but nevertheless such an old story as last Octobers resignation of Major Sebastian Morley.
Major Morley was at the time the most senior reservist SAS officer in Afghanistan, and resigned because army commanders and Whitehall officials ignored his warnings that “unsafe” vehicles would lead to the deaths of soldiers.
Perhaps the answer is as the Times reports that
Major Morley accused Quentin Davies, the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, of telling an “unacceptable lie” when he said after the deaths that commanders could choose which vehicles they used in combat.
“A government minister is on record telling a lie about four deaths, and this is unacceptable. For him to reverse his position now is too little too late.
“To accuse an operational commander of having a choice, and for that man to have made a choice that led to death, is to accuse him of negligence.
“There was no other vehicle to use. The simple truth is that the protection of these vehicles is inadequate and this led to the unnecessary deaths.”
Dr Richard North has been blogging about these unsafe Snatch Land Rovers for quite some time on both EU Referendum and Defence of the Realm
On the 19th June 2008 he wrote the following:
As to the “Snatch” Land Rover, yesterday when we received the reports of the deaths was the second anniversary of our post, pointing out the dangerous vulnerability of these vehicles.
There is, therefore, no excuse, no excuse at all. For two years (well over, in fact), the MoD and the Army have known that “Snatch” Land Rovers are entirely unsuitable for counterinsurgency operations, and they have had two years warning that the Taleban were going to adopt ambush tactics using bombs and mines.
The answer was then and is now, what have come to be known as MRAPs – Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. At the Eurosatory exhibition yesterday, it was clear that militaries throughout the world have got the message … a small sample of MRAPs seen yesterday follows (and yes, one is a “Panther - even that is better than a “Snatch” if used as an ordinary patrol vehicle).
That we have not enough of them, and are still using “Snatch” Land Rovers, is inexcusable. The people, at all levels, who were involved – by act of default – in failing properly to equip our Army are in part responsible for sending these four soldiers to their deaths. They are stupid, malign fools.
Mar 6th, 2009 by Ken
EU and Royal Mail sale
SIR – At this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Ann Winterton asked whether “the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation”. The answer referred to the Hooper report, which explains that the real reasons for part-privatising the Royal Mail are European Union postal legislation and EU state-aid rules.
Why do our elected representatives not want the British people to know the truth?
Stuart Noyes
Andover, Hampshire
More from EU Referendum
Feb 27th, 2009 by Ken
Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms
The new laws whisper:
You don’t know who you are
You’re mistaken about yourself
We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless
We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you
And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised
The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:
Expressing an opinion is a dangerous activity
Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them
So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are
And we do not want to hear you arguing about it
So hold your tongue and forget about protesting
What we want from you is acquiescence
Feb 26th, 2009 by Ken
Some might think I have alluded to the public funding of the Global Warming Science and suggested that it could well be a corrupting influence. In reality I have been trying to propose an argument against the smears perpetrated by AGW Alarmists by making them face the consequences of their arguments, ie. if private funding corrupts why then does not public funding?
Exxon Mobile and other corporations we are told have supported scientific studies! We are invited to take from this simple statement the understanding that because it was funded by corporations the science can be discounted as misleading. Although when challenged on this point the AGW alarmists suddenly become reticent and fail to offer examples of this corruption.
The term “misleading” is itself loaded, in that it pre-assumes the evidence for one side of the debate is an absolute truth, rather than an unproven hypothesis. Only questioning a palatable truth can in reality be misleading. Such is the case of those who deny the reality of the Holocaust, this introduces another loaded word denialist! Where the invited linkage is obvious and intended.
By their words ye should know them!
Does corporate funding lead naturally to corruption? The short answer is I do not know, and do not see my place to defend corporations, just to question the certainties of the AGW alamists; It might be the case that some scientists have traded their scientific integrity for corporate money and are prepared to misinterpret their findings for funding. But the question still remains what of those other scientist receiving public funding, or are we expected to believe that the bad apples are all in the one camp?
A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.
In a contemporary study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a similar proportion of the 107 medical research institutions questioned were willing to allow pharmaceutical companies sponsoring research to alter manuscripts according to their interests before they were submitted for publication.
So it would seem that some scientists on both sides are willing to bend the rules in order to facilitate funding, the figure is around 15%, of course this figure accounts for only those who were willing to admit to being corrupted. It is important to remember that here we are only talking of scientists not the attendant hangers on associated with Global Warming, those can all be discounted because they all to a certain extent cherry pick the evidence to suit their claims.
If one looks at “private” funding of science in less politically contentious areas where the smear campaigners do not figure, we find that in the OECD, countries around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry. A characteristic of privately funded research is that it is almost always profit-oriented. In other words, private corporations tend to devote a relatively small investment to fund research into a field that shows little prospect of being profitable in the near future. But we should also consider that most of the greatest scientific discoveries in the past have resulted from private funding, as there was no public funding.
In Global Warming however the vast majority of funding is via the public purse and is thus considered to be for the general benefit of mankind. The slight problem with that argument is, one would expect as it is for the public good that the search would be to be for the truth and thus funding would be more proportionate. When was the last publicly funded study questioning the AGW theory?
Whenever government is in the position to decide what scientific projects get funded, it’s going to abuse that power, and political interest groups are going to try to persuade it to abuse that power. Also, in cases where there are genuine scientific controversies, politicians will choose those whose views are politically useful to them, thereby distorting actual controversies in the eyes of the general public and making it more difficult to resolve those debates scientifically.
The bottom line is: when government writes the checks, it will make the rules, and those rules will interfere with scientific independence and scientific integrity.
Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist and vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in England. His 1996 book, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,
Says:
There will always be the private funding of science, and whether it comes out of companies or it comes out of universities, the reality is that all scientists select what they publish. And the reader doesn’t know what the scientists have chosen not to publish. In the end you just have to have a marketplace of competing ideas. That’s why pluralism of funding is so important. It is important to have government funding and foundation funding and industrial funding and endowment funding of universities. With a multiplicity of funders you are more likely, ultimately, to get the truth.
Getting to the truth does not seem to be the aim of the global warming alarmists that seems to be to promote only their version of the truth to the exclusion of any other evidence. This would not really make that much difference except in this case we are all going to have to pay a very heavy price for the government funded version of truth.
The biggest discover by far in the AGW debate is that the politicians have fund a way of taxing air and we should all understand that they are not going to let go of their new found tax stream and will always find willing scientists to assist them because they are paying the fiddler.
Some words stolen from
Thanks to EU Referendum for the pointer
Feb 22nd, 2009 by Ken
I must confess that I had lost touch with Martin Coles of Ironies Too, I used to read his original Blog Ironies. Here Mr Coles has a blinder, the President of the EU parliament Hans-Gert Poettering, reacting angrily to the perceived insult to the EU metered out by Czech President Vaclav Klaus during his speech in the parliament this week, when 200 MEPs were so shocked that the felt the need to walk out. Funny thing Vaclav Klaus was only calling for the EU to become democratic and saying a one party state is not democratic it seems this line thought is to shocking to hear in the Parliament of the EU.
“President in the past surely you would not have been able to give this speech in this parliament”
I wonder why not?
Allow me to make a concluding comment We thank you for your recognition of this Parliament as an important institution, if we were not influential today then we would not be legislators for 75% of all laws in Europe and with the Lisbon Treaty nearly 100% of all cases then it would the bureaucrats in Europe who decide but now it is the EU Parliament that decides.
So there you have it the EU is responsible for 75% of all laws in Europe today and when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified nearly 100%
Such percentage figures do not sit well with the British government, who are still trying to argue black is white. As can be seen by this intervention by Denis MacShane responding to Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; during a House of Commons debate on Wednesday, 8 October 2008.
MacShane
Only 10 per cent. of the laws that impact on us in the United Kingdom, adopted by this House principally through statutory instruments, emanate from the European Union. Then, to my horror, Mr. Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, leapt to his feet and quoted another right hon. Gentleman who had said that 50 per cent. or more of regulations came from the European Union. That right hon. Gentleman was the Prime Minister. Naturally, as a devoted admirer and fan of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister over decades, I was very concerned thus to be put in my place. I wrote to the Prime Minister to see whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks had accurately quoted him.I have a letter here, very kindly addressed, “Dear Denis”, and dated 30 April this year, in which he says
“that—on average—around 9 per cent. of all statutory instruments transpose EC legislation…I believe this is the correct figure.”
In a debate in this House on 3 June, Mr. Lilley said that about 80 per cent of all legislation emanated from the European Union, quoting a German Government source.
The BBC and others have been trying to find this German Government source—is it Goethe, Schiller, or Mrs. Merkel?—and find that they cannot. It really is not good enough to come to the House and quote anonymous Germans, whoever they may be, in defence of the preposterous position that 80 per cent. of all our laws come from the European Union.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman was in very good company. Only two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of switching on the “Today” programme before 7 o’clock to find Mr. John Humphrys interviewing my favourite Euro-comic turn, Mr. Nigel Farage of the UK Independence party. Nigel—I hope that he does not mind my being familiar, but we get on quite well—said that 75 per cent. of all laws in the UK were now decided by the European Union: 5 per cent. less than the right hon. Gentleman’s figure. I do not know what had happened in the intervening two or three months.
As Mr. Humphrys is usually so swift and vigorous in picking up anything that is a palpable untruth, I wrote to the BBC to ask whether that figure was going to be corrected or whether Mr. Humphrys could be politely asked, next time he hears this nonsense, from whatever source, to slap it down.
Before the European Parliament elections it is important that we establish certain accepted truths about the European Union. It is time to nail here in this House, and publicly, the lie that the EU is responsible for 80 per cent. of our laws, according to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, or for 75 per cent., according to Mr. Nigel Farage.
I have here a letter from Mr. Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser at BBC News. It is very friendly, but whenever someone from the BBC writes to one of us on these issues they go into a special room, cover themselves in grease, and then go for a swim in oil, so what he says is, to put it mildly, quite hard to grasp. He turns to Mr. Mark Mardell, the BBC’s excellent Europe editor, saying that Mr. Mardell
“has previously researched Mr Farage’s claim, made on Today, that this figure is 75 per cent., and found that it is supposedly based on a German government statement, although no-one has actually discovered it.
Mark points out, however, that this whole area is a contentious one and that the last time he tried to establish an accurate figure he found the subject, in his words, too ‘jelly-like’ to nail down.”
So the Government claim 9% and suggest that any higher figure is invented because all the apparatus of the BBC and all the power of the British government were unable to track down 
the story of where the figure of 80% came from, when in fact it is very easy to verify that the figures comes from a report of The German Ministry of Justice and was reported by none less than Roman Herzog the ex German president in;
AN ARTICLE ON THE EU CONSTITUTION for the “Welt am Sonntag” dated 14 January 2007 CEP | Hermann-Herder-Str. 4 | 79104 Freiburg | Telephone 0761 38693-0 | info@cep.eu 1 by Roman Herzog and Lüder Gerken
The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent came from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin. It is not relevant to counteract this by claiming that the “more important” laws are made in Germany. Single market legislation, the “fauna flora habitat” environment directive and anti-discrimination legislation, to name but a few examples, are European legal acts which have brought about a fundamental, sustainable change in Germany’s legal and social structure.
Where does the centralising tendency come from?
One initial cause is the fact that EU politicians are politicians, and EU civil servants are civil servants. No matter whether they are working in a national ministry or in an EU Directorate General: if they are given the task of protecting the environment or potential victims of discrimination, they will do so as extensively as possible, thus creating corresponding regulation. In these efforts – sometimes well-meaning attempts to solve problems, sometimes simple striving for influence and power – it is frequently only a marginal aspect whether the EU has the necessary competency and whether a pan-EU solution is really necessary.
This explains why when pursuing what are in the end politically dictated objectives, time and again the European Union regulates matters which certainly do not have to be harmonised throughout the EU or for which the EU does not even really have any competency at all. This is repeatedly justified with the argument that the Member States have not brought about any comparable regulation so that the problem can only be solved by the EU.
One example of this is the massive impact on substantive labour law by EU anti-discrimination legislation, although the structural contents of labour law falls under the responsibility of the Member States.
A second cause for inappropriate centralisation is the fact that Brussels is frequently used as a backdoor for introducing legislation. If a national ministry, for example the German Ministry for the Environment, cannot assert a certain regulation project on the national level – for instance because the German Minister of Labour puts up resistance or because it would not obtain a majority in the German Parliament, it discreetly “encourages” the corresponding Directorate General in the European Commission to implement the project on the EU level. In Brussels, this will usually fall on open ears for the reasons stated above. The EU project then runs through the normal legislative process. In the end, the Council of Ministers takes the final decision. As a rule, it will be staffed by exactly that German Ministry which had prom
