eurealist.co.uk

This from The Anglo Saxon Chronicle has been tickling my sense of the ridiculous since I read last week, I think Orwell would have approved of the sentiment.
Every time this government is faced with a problem it suggests introducing a policy that has far reaching influences on our freedoms. Do we really want a government agency to have the ability to trace our every move every second of every day.

1984 hear we come!

Car of the future

Car: where would you like to go. ‘Enter destination’

Driver: ‘Bournemouth’

Car: ‘Business or Pleasure’

Driver: ‘Business’

Car: The best time to travel will be 6 pm, stopping for one hour at Channock Richard service station. and refuelling at Oxford after the Blue Ford reg YFI 654 BINGO. Cost of road access EUR 23. Press ‘Y’ to accept ‘N” for decline.

Driver: presses ‘Y’

Car: Please insert your National ID card

Driver: inserts ID card

Car: According to your NHS Records you are currently taking cough medicine, your last scheduled dosage was 1 hour ago. Journey Authorisation Declined. Would you like us to recalculate. Press ‘Y’ yes, ‘N’ no

Driver: ‘Y’

Car: Based on your Medication, the best time to make the journey is 3 AM, Stopping for 1 hr at Knutsford Service area, Refuelling at Oxford after the Pink Honda reg YFI 123 LOTTERY (note 10 mins refuel time only) cost of road access EUR 43. Y’ to accept ‘N” for decline.

Driver: ‘Y’

Car: According to your Bank Account Records your spouse has just purchased a pair of shoes. You have insufficient funds to make this journey. Journey Authorisation Declined. would you like us to arrange a bank loan. Press ‘Y” yes, ‘N’ no.

Driver: ‘Y’

Car: According to our Records, this is not possible at this time, you have reached your loan on disposable income limit, Would you like us to sell your Laptop on EBay. Press ‘Y’ yes, ‘N’ no

Driver: ‘Y’
Car: We are about to list your Laptop s/no 23456543, would you like us to format the disk before the sale (+ EUR 10) Press ‘Y” yes, ‘N’ no.

Driver: ‘N’

Car: Can we remind you that you have one authorised pornography picture of you and your spouse and a letter to your authorised mistress on the PC, are you sure you don’t want us to erase this information. Press ‘Y’ yes, ‘N’ no

Driver: ‘Y’

Car: We have deleted those files and your PC is now listed (+ EUR 10)

Car: The sale was successful, your PC sold for EUR 100, you can now proceed. Press ‘Y” yes, ‘N’ no

Driver: ‘Y’

Car: The sale of your laptop has increased your gross annual personal income, you now have to pay 60% tax on future income.

Car: Have a nice day

I could go on and on and on and on……….

MEP`s join budget debate

José Manuel Barroso “The European Parliament has shown leadership and good sense by putting the policy needs of the EU first. We respect the work done by MEPs in this domain, and note with satisfaction that they are backing a budget on the same scale proposed by the commission. I hope member states can follow this example, and match resources to requirements, rather than impose arbitrary limits.”

Thus spoke the EU Commission President when he welcomed the parliament budget blueprint which oddly coincided with that of the Commision.

Unfortunately it does not recognise that the EU`s largest cash contributors – Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands – are all seeking to slash EU expenditure. As they are the paymasters it might have been pertinent to realise that if they say they will not contribute more to the EU, then it must cut its cloth according to the finances that are going to be available. If that means the EU will have less money to waste, less money to spend on propaganda, less money to give to terrorist organisations, less money to put into their own trough, then they should accept that, and look at ways of cutting waste and ways to make their accounts balance, so that we a not faced with an 11th year when their own accountants refuse to accept their financial records as being anything other than a fairy story.

Dr Liam Fox MP Shadow Foreign Secretary writes in the Times the constitution is effectively dead. It is not a setback, but a chance to create a new direction. But warns that we should beware of cherry pickers, and chooses three areas which he says will be on the cherry picking agenda.
Arguing that the seemingly never-ending transfer of power from nation states to

Brussels must stop, and where possible be reversed. Politicians must recognise that the constitution was a step too far on several fronts, most notably the attempts to give the EU the trappings of statehood, the reduction in our ability to use the veto and the proposed charter of fundamental rights. We must be vigilant that these proposals do not reappear by the back door.

What was actually being proposed in the constitution represented the transfer of yet more powers from the people to Brussels. The British people would have been obliged to give up of the veto in no fewer than 63 individual areas, including such key issues as criminal law and justice. This is no tidying-up exercise. It is, rather, a massive extension of qualified majority voting. The British people must be given a say if such a change is mooted.

The dangers posed by the constitution’s aspiration to build on the European Convention on Human Rights are no less threatening. The proposed charter of fundamental rights would be the bedrock of constitutional law in the EU. Judges in Brussels would accrue immense power over the interpretation of legislation and therefore over the people of this country. Since power would thus be transferred away from the British people, again it is vital that the people have their say.

At a more symbolic (but no less significant) level, we cannot simply sit back and allow the EU to acquire the trappings of statehood. The constitution would create a single diplomatic service and a “president”. Further, the EU would be allowed to sign treaties as a single legal entity — an act universally recognised as one of the definitions of a “nation state”. It should be unthinkable for such a change to be countenanced without the explicit approval of the British people. Only a referendum would ensure that.

For all the current talk of crisis in Europe, this is really only a crisis for the European political elite, whose 60-year vision has come to an end. For the people of Europe, it is an opportunity to refashion the EU into an institution whose priority is to generate jobs and prosperity, something which the present European project is hopelessly ill-suited to do.

The debate is no longer about what can be saved from the blueprints of the past, but what the blueprint for the future of Europe should be.
The problem is that the ECJ is already using the charter of fundamental rights to inform its decisions even though it has no legal basis they hope that by so doing they will create such a basis in community law, and who is to stop them doing so certainly not Tony Blair and his EU cohorts they have signed up to the whole package.

Dr Fox argues the constitution would create a single diplomatic service, however already that is being created, the EU foreign Secretary designate called last week for the building of the service to continue because he said despite the French and Dutch votes that at some that service would come into being. Also they have already given up the veto on immigration and there is no mechanism to stop the Prime Minister agreeing to give up the veto in any other areas he decides.

Dr Fox should brush up on his remit, if he thinks the EU Elites including Blair are going to meekly scrap their prized proposals just because a few million people said they did not want the constitution. Does he not realise that these are the same elites who belive that the people like children, do not know what is best for them, and must be gently guided into the Promised Land by our revered leaders.