eurealist.co.uk

Taking a leaf out of the EU book on denigrating the opponent, the Labour party has just issued its latest election ploy, instead of the EU myth where everything that is detrimental to the image of the EU is goatishly labelled a myth, the labour party has decided to label any policy coming out of the conservative central office as getting on the bandwagon.

As encouragement to those who want to join in, Labour has released its top ten on the “Michael Howard Bandwagon Watch”.

And you are also invited to send in your predictions as to what bandwagons Mr Howard may chase in the future.

Submit your predictions here:

http://labour.org.uk/bandwagon
Here are the current top ten favourites for his next bandwagon:
1. Howard pledges new “ATM bill” to deal with people who take too long getting money out of cashpoints.
2. Howard to ban hosepipe bans.
3. Howard to double limit on items allowed in “six and under” supermarket queues.
4. Howard says Premiership abuse of referees has grown under Labour, and promises a new “Graham Poll” bill.
5. Howard pledges to press Channel Four to move The Sopranos to 9pm.
6. Howard urges The West Wing to have a Republican President - preferably one who will meet him.
7. Howard to outlaw “push polling” - except by the Tories in this campaign.
8. Howard calls for royal wedding memorabilia profits to go to charity.
9. Howard pledges new bill to force pop stars to sing lyrics clearly.
10. Howard pledges streamlining of choice in coffee shops.

Make your own suggestion here: http://labour.org.uk/bandwagon

Quite obviously Labour do not want to enter into any reasonable debate on either their record or Conservative policies.

Even though surveys show 70% of European consumers oppose GMO foods, green groups have warned The European Union could see a series of new biotech foods quietly approved with no authority from EU states. As they cannot overcome years of deadlock over genetically modified (GMO) foods the EU states will see the Commission stepping in to authorise these foods over the heads of the governments.

To my mind if the states say no that is not a deadlock but a refusal to accept these new biotech foods, the only deadlock seems to be the States do not want them and the interested parties in the EU do.

Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth said this would be riding roughshod over public opinion “The Commission is not giving a lot of space to member states in the process. They are overruling an overwhelming majority of member states and the public, who say ‘We don’t want them’.”

EU member states have not themselves approved any new GMO since 1998 as no decision has been taken, it falls to the Commission to approve the new GMO, under a intricate procedure that allows the EU executive to step in if member states cannot reach a decision themselves. The European Commission will hold its first debate on GMO policy on Tuesday and appears keen to push a backlog of GMO requests through the EU’s complex authorisation process.

Even more evidence, if it were needed, of the Commissions place as the real government of this country. A thought has just occurred to me, as we are holding a general election in May (we assume) perhaps the EU Commission would like to stand as a political party in order to gain a democratic mandate for their aims and ambitions for the people of the UK? No! Thought not.

Neil Herron: Local Authorities becoming worried over their ‘illegal’ parking regimes.:

“As more and more peeople are beginning to challenge their parking tickets in decriminalised enforcement areas using the Metric Martyrs Judgment and Bill of Rights defence that we have used here in Sunderland, more and more local authorities are becoming increasingly worried.”

Neil Herron seems to have found a loophole in the statutory fines regime to which we are all increasingly being subjected.

Basing his arguments on the Metric Martyrs case when Lord Justice Laws, said that there is a hierarchy of laws and that some constitutional laws cannot be repealed by implication only by expressed repeal.

Mr Herron has noted that unless the acts brought in to subject us to these automatic fines, state that they have the affect of repealing the 1689 Bill of Rights, then the authorities are acting without the law.

The facts of the various cases are not really at issue, it is the legality of the fines, the Bill of Rights clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed.

As neither the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689 these fines are in effect illegal.

But the further argument is, if it can be shown that these acts are in fact legal, it must also follow that Lord Justice Laws was wrong and the Metric Martyr’s conviction must be overturned.

For the authorities it is a catch 22 situation

Jose Manuel Barroso blames the French elite for treaty problems

The president of the European Commission yesterday launched a scathing attack on the ruling classes in France for allowing public opinion there to turn against the draft European constitution. He demanded the political leaders of France “do their job”, and “make an effort to explain the constitution” to French voters, who are turning against the treaty.

President Jacques Chirac, as leader of the Yes camp, has said he believes the directive is “unacceptable”, and told Mr Barroso to “silence” members of his commission pushing for economic liberalisation.

Here we have it yet again there is no place for public opinion in the EU, as Tim Worstall comments “not that we should do what the people want, but that the people should be persuaded to do what we want. Interesting, no?”

We really do have to decide if we wish to continue to be members of a union that so blatantly removes the power of the people at the ballot box to choose their own governments and policies.

Not dealing with the Question

In November I wrote to my MP (Mathew Green) about the lack of any democratic mandate for regional assemblies. Although he agrees that It is most important that funding decisions of the sort currently made by regional government are made democratically, by accountable, elected representatives. It would seem that the official line is that these assemblies do constitute the democratic voice of local people. As I have and the other locals have no means of controlling who is represented on these quangos, it seems that the new EU version of democracy is spreading like a virus through all systems of government.

Dear Mr Green

As you have helped me in the past I thought it appropriate to send you the enclosed letter from a contact, who clearly states some of the objections many of us have about Britain’s lack of democracy. Yes we can vote for whom ever we wish, but there seems to be a point beyond which we cannot affect a particular policy, all main political parties are intent upon.

The people of the North East have just completely rejected the case for the regionalisation in this country, we in this area will now not have the opportunity of making our own feeling known, because the government will not now chance another rejection of their policy, this means we are left with the regional assembly as an unelected and unaccountable government Quango, this is not acceptable because these assemblies were intended to be the nucleus of an elected regional assembly, we have not asked for this, yet we have to pay for the assemblies their offices in Brussels and everything else that goes with them. So to quote the enclosed letter WHERE IS THE DEMOCRACY?

Yours Sincerely

Ken Adams
The Waterdine
Llanfair Waterdine
Nr Knighton
Shropshire
LD7 1TU

Address removed
13.11.2004.
Dear Mr Prescott,

Why is the government trying to force “democracy” on to the people of Iraq and now, even the Palestinians while this government is intent on destroying ‘democracy’ here in the United Kingdom?

The people of the North East Counties have spoken loud and clearly that they want their own Local and District Councils to remain because they truly ‘bring democracy closer to the people’ and our Counties and Councils should have the power and money that have obviously been available to the Union’s Regions.

The democratically elected Members of Parliament are forever (whinging) on about the “unelected” House of Lords (even though, having removed the hereditary peers had the opportunity to “elect” peers yet preferred not to) now is the time to remove the undemocratic unelected Regional Assemblies, closing the existing Government offices in the regions and scrap the Regional Development Agencies altogether.

According to Hansard the Electoral Commission have spent £100,000 of taxpayer’s money on the “Yes” and “No” campaign. The Boundary Commission a further £6 million, another £5 million on your Department’s “Your say” campaign, quite apart from various ‘visits’ from those in high office to help the “yes” campaign. Yet we are led to believe that you are going to ignore the people’s referendum, and continue with the Quango set up in 1998. (All a waste of money and time- to which you and your department should be accountable) The people’s vote was a rejection of this country of England being split up into Regions, a democratic vote by the people, which you sir, appear to be ignoring. Do you wonder why people do not wish to vote at elections?

The Prime Minister made a great play on the word “democracy” whist he was in America at the White House; he wants Iraq and now Palestine to have ‘democracy’, and the latter a “state” in its own right as long as it embraces “democracy”.

So what is this “democracy” that we are so proud to share with others and want others to have too? Is it all that it is ‘cracked up’ to be? We have fought and many have died fighting for freedom in this country, and many of our brave soldiers are laying down their lives now, fighting for strangers we have never met, so that they too can have a slice of freedom and this magical ‘democracy’ they have heard so much about. To be able to vote freely for their leader. To actually “take part” in what they are being led to believe, is the running of their Country.

It is not democracy when government does not listen to the people. It is not democracy when people we vote for cannot stop EU legislation from destroying our industries. It is not democracy when our Prime Minister signs for a new constitution for this Country when he knows without doubt that the people do NOT WANT IT. It is not democracy when a Government deliberately sets about destroying the very people’s Common Law Constitution that even the Government are supposed to observe and protect. It is most certainly NOT democracy to deliberately continue further and deeper integration into what you know will eventually become a federal State of European Union in the full knowledge that it is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country. It is not democracy when a National Government puts the undemocratic European Union before their own Country. Even as you sir, are doing now by ignoring the democratic votes of the people so recently taken.

We have lost the true ‘democracy’ and freedom we once had and I ‘pray’, I really do pray, that it comes back naturally without having to fight once more for both. The people are beginning to fight back as shown in the democratic referendum on the North East Counties last week. It was a ‘legitimate and legal’ fight, please remember that fact.

Slowly, over the years in government through the so-called democratic vote of the people, the Government have systematically overruled the law above the law, the very basic foundations of this country, its Constitution, yet the present government would eagerly take on board an EU constitution that, even as a democratically elected Government of this Country, they would no longer have the power to alter one dot or comma of that EU constitution. So where, since we have democratically elected this Government to represent us, is this magical wonderful democracy now?

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

To The Rt Hon John Prescott MP
Deputy Prime Minister,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A OAA.

Copy to Hon Bernard Jenkin MP,
Shadow Secretary of state for the Regions

Mathew Green MP Ludlow
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
16th February 2005

Dear Ken,

Regional Assemblies

Your letter expresses concern over the lack of democracy created by having unelected Regional Assemblies.

You are right to oppose the continued existence of unelected regional government.

Unelected regional government has existed in the UK for over 20 years. It was set up by the Conservatives, who established regional quangos as a means of distributing regeneration funds. These bodies are directly responsible only to the Secretary of State. Liberal Democrats oppose unelected bodies making funding decisions — that’s why, when the government announced plans to set up elected regional bodies, we supported them, but only on the grounds that these bodies were given real powers, and that regional assemblies were small and efficient. We also argued that regions should accurately reflect local needs and priorities. Most Shropshire people do not think of themselves as part of the West Midlands, an arbitrary region whose boundaries were determined by the Conservatives. I have argued that, if we were to have a regional assembly in our area, it should be a Severn Valley region, comprising Shropshire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.

It is most important that funding decisions of the sort currently made by regional government are made democratically, by accountable, elected representatives. Many of these decisions and programmes could be run effectively by local councils. If we are not to have directly elected regional assemblies, I would support the redistribution of the functions of regional government, to the most appropriate level of government — whether that be local or, in some cases, central.

I hope my comments help to address the concerns you raise. Additionally, I have passed on your letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, asking him to comment on your views. As soon as I receive his response, I will of course contact you again.

Yours sincerely,

Mathew Green MP

Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister
Creating sustainable communities
Phil Hope MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
26 Whitehall, London SWIA 2W11
Tel: 020 7944 4400 Fax: 020 7944 4339 E-Mail:

Matthew Green Esq MP
House of Commons
London SW IA 0AA

www.odpm.gov.uk

16 MAR 2095

Thank you for your letter of 23 February enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr Ken Adams of Address Removed, regarding regional assemblies and regional government.

Regional assemblies are not government quangos, but voluntary bodies. Most are funded in part by local authority subscriptions (or benefits in kind, such as office accommodation), and in part by government grant for the undertaking of specific functions on behalf of Ministers, such as regional spatial planning, and scrutiny of the Regional Development Agencies. They are responsible to their members, who include Local Authority elected members and other stakeholders representing a wide range of regional interests including business, environmental groups, and the voluntary sector.

Voluntary regional assemblies exist in all eight English regions outside London, including the North East of England. The referendum held in that region in November was on proposals for a directly elected regional assembly which if it had been established, would have exercised a number of executive functions in the region not undertaken by the existing voluntary regional assemblies.

There are and will continue to be issues which must be dealt with below the national level, but which need to be co-ordinated over an area larger than any single local authority. We want to continue the progress that has been made by the existing regional! Assemblies, who now play a valuable role on housing planning, transport, economic development and skills and training issues across their regions. If the people in the regions are to have a voice and an input to the development of strategies that cross local authority boundaries then clearly we need the regional assemblies to continue to work for the benefit of their regions.

Further details about the work of the West Midlands Regional Assembly are available on their website: www.wmra.gov.uk I enclose a short extract for your information.

PHIL HOPE

Accountability of regional assemblies - Comment - Times Online

Accountability of regional assemblies
From Dr Matthew Portal
Sir, I share Mr Iain Campbell’s disquiet about regional assemblies (letter, March 15). I was recently sent a questionnaire by “Your Shout” on behalf of the South East England Regional Assembly. This apparently includes representatives from 55 district councils from Oxfordshire to Kent, as well as “representatives from business and voluntary groups”, and is responsible for “regional planning, acting as an advocate for the region and holding the region’s development agency to account”.

This seems to be a considerable amount of power and influence for the assembly to arrogate to itself, without the safeguard of being directly elected. If the assembly is an invention of EU bureaucracy (which is unclear from the information provided) I do not want such a body to hold anyone to account, let alone take a major role in planning and development in an already overcrowded part of the country.

I also see that there are plans on transport, waste and energy, that are “ . . . already agreed . . . to 2016 with Government, following earlier consultation”. Surely all voters might wish to have the opportunity to express a view — but at the ballot box, not through bogus consultation by an offshoot of the EU.

Yours faithfully,
MATTHEW PORTAL,

“Bogus Consultation” is the way of the EU, lacking any democratic legality as it does, it would like us to be stupid enough to accept that its consultation exercise are a satisfactory replacement for democracy.