eurealist.co.uk

Again thanks from Dr Cooper the Western Morning News

PRESSURISE YOUR MP OVER REGIONAL POLICE

The purpose of Lindsay Jenkins’ article (December 13) on the shameless bulldozing through of regional police forces by the Government was to explain the real reason for it. Britain is long committed to the EU by treaty to set up full regional government for the future governance of this country by the EU when we have finally been fully integrated into it. It is fact - inescapable fact. Tell people this and they are likely to say: “So what - we don’t like the idea of a huge centralised police force covering the seven counties of the South West but what difference does it make to know that it is to conform with EU planning?” My answer is: Here is only the latest example of how integration into the EU will soon affect our daily lives, and in a most fundamental way - worse-than-ever policing. We can only stop regional policing by attacking its cause; i.e. demand that we withdraw from the EU. Nothing less will do.

Don’t be fooled. The EU Constitution has not gone away. It is still being brought in by stealth. The integration process continues right now. Every week more examples of it are revealed. Polls have shown that a majority of the public want to leave the EU, so what are we waiting for?

Since policing is essentially a local matter, every MP should be pressured to state publicly whether he or she is for or against regional police forces, and how those who are against intend to stop it. So we should all get writing.

Conservative MPs, vaguely Eurosceptic as they are, have an easy answer because their party is committed to abolish regional government - provided it gets in before we are irreversibly integrated. Lib-Dem and Labour MPs are bound by their parties to be fully pro-EU, so will be hard pressed to voice any opposition to regional policing.

Sir George Earle

Crediton

Link

This Is Devon from Graham BoothWE CAN’T AFFORD SUBSIDIES FOR ALL

Your columnist Kate Ironside seems to have her morals all mixed up in her recent article. If you read my speech to the EU Parliament last month its contents may straighten out her muddled thinking.

It is very tempting to offer all of Europe’s poorer regions vast subsidies, but perhaps we should remember that West Germany has already spent some EUR 900 billion trying to create a level playing field for their relatively small neighbour, East Germany. That should ring serious alarm bells, but we are turning a deaf ear. The eight eastern European countries that have already joined the EU, plus Bulgaria and Romania, have been promised g139 billion out of the total structural funds budget of g336 billion for the period 2007 to 2013.

An exhibition that the Dutch Presidency put on in Brussels last December predicted that another ten impoverished countries will join the EU by 2022. Based on Germany’s experience, the costs will be absolutely astronomical and attainable only if the big three member states - Germany, Britain and France - are prepared to impoverish themselves in the process. It is about time we scrapped this whole crazy idea and helped out those poorer countries by creating opportunities for increased trade, tourism, etc.

I can well believe that Tony Blair will agree to impoverish Britain in his quest for European popularity, but I cannot imagine Mr Chirac doing the same thing to France.

The EU is a political experiment aimed at “ever closer union” of the member states that have largely been led into the project by the political elites in each country.

Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, neither Mr Blair nor any of his predecessors has the mandate to pursue anything other than a “Common Market”, which is what we voted for in 1975.

However, as a leaked memo from the Foreign Office - AKA the Vichy Brigade - shows, the UK will drop from being 20th out of 25 in the EU handout rankings at present to being 27th out of 27 by 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania will have joined the EU. At the same time we will, under Blair’s current proposals end up paying more than 50% more than at present.

I struggle to see any moral issue of the type claimed by Kate Ironside but not specified, in this disastrous condition.

The EU is a vast confidence trick aimed at stealing sovereignty and independence from free nations and is the most immoral issue I can think of.

Perhaps Ms Ironside could develop a proper moral case for the EU? Now that would be an interesting article!

Graham Booth MEP

Paignton

Many Thanks Dr Cooper

This should release a few pigeons amongst the cats, I have not read the full report yet but its puff looks promising. Happy New Year

Anthony Browne (Who He) argues in The Retreat of Reason that political correctness, which classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism and allows no dissent to be expressed, is poisoning the wells of debate in modern Britain.

Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts’ (p.xii). Political correctness started in academia, (Actually it stated in Germany before the War and then was taken to New York when the Nazis ousted the school) but it now dominates schools, hospitals, local authorities, the civil service, the media, companies, the police and the army. Since 1997 Britain has been ruled by political correctness for the first time. ‘The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are’ (p.34).
Anthony Browne describes political correctness as a ‘heresy of liberalism’ (p.2) under which ‘a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument’ (p.6). Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own: ‘political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue’.

Whether an argument is true or not is a secondary consideration to whether it fits with the PC view of the world:
‘In the topsy-turvy politically correct world, truth comes in two forms: the politically correct, and the factually correct. The politically correct truth is publicly proclaimed correct by politicians, celebrities and the BBC even if it is wrong, while the factually correct truth is publicly condemned as wrong even when it is right. Factually correct truths suffer the disadvantage that they don’t have to be shown to be wrong, merely stated that they are politically incorrect. To the politically correct, truth is no defence; to the politically incorrect, truth is the ultimate defence. (p.7)’

Anthony Browne gives some examples (p.8) of factually incorrect arguments that trump factually correct ones, because they are PC:
He argues that PC is much more than just a dispute about words, or the hope of avoiding hurtful expressions: it leads to an incorrect analysis of real problems, which means that the wrong solutions are attempted. People suffer as a result:
‘Black communities are encouraged to blame racist teachers for the failings of their boys at school, rather than re-examine their own culture and attitudes to education that may be the prime reasons. The poor sick have ended up having worse healthcare in Britain than they would in mainland Europe because PC for long closed down debate on fundamental NHS reform. Women’s employment opportunities can be harmed by giving them ever more rights that are not given to men. The unemployed are encouraged to languish on benefits blaming others for their fate. Poor Africans are condemned to live in poverty so long as they and their governments are encouraged to blame the West for all their problems, rather than confronting the real causes of poor governance, corruption and poor education’. (p.xiv) The end of political correctness?
Political correctness is the invention of Western intellectuals who feel guilty about the universal triumph of Western values and economic prosperity. However, threats to the influence of the West may bring political correctness to an end:
‘Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation’. (p.84)

Even the long-unrivalled economic dominance of the West will come under challenge from the newly flourishing economies of India and China. Westerners will stop feeling guilty about their position when it has to be defended against rival cultures and ideologies. Anthony Browne lists several steps that could be taken to limit the malign influence of political correctness before it does further damage:

• Free speech should be protected with an equivalent of the first amendment to the US constitution

• A binding referendum should be called on any proposal if supported by a certain percentage of the population. Such ‘citizens’ initiatives’ return power to the people, encouraging ordinary citizens to re-engage with the political process

• Un-PC groups should be formed and promoted to oppose PC flag-wavers like left-wing charities. A taxpayers’ alliance could argue for lower taxes; a homeowners association could campaign on issues affecting homeowners, like council tax and crime

• There should be more objective teaching of the history of the West. Foundations should be set up to preserve and promote the Western heritage and values (pp. 86-7).

‘In the long run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell its demise. Finally, Western minds may be free again to reason rather than just emote, to pursue objective truth rather than subjective virtue’. (p.87

Download a PDF copy

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schssel on taking over the Presidency of the EU this month wants to resurrect and redefine the EU Constitution; he said “Europe needed “some moments of fantasy and flexibility and new thoughts.” He said he would restart efforts to draft a new constitution at an EU conference on European identity to be held in Salzburg in late January. He would like to rewrite the services directive, a bill making it easier for European workers and companies to offer services abroad.

“We shouldn’t wait too long to revive the debate on the European future,” Schssel said. Not long at all, he said he aimed to have a timetable and road map for ratification of a new European constitution ready by mid-2006, when Austria hands over the EU presidency to Finland.

Valery Giscard d Estaing s, constitution drafted at a convention lasting months is according to Schssel a process that was elitist and anachronistic, he said, “I want to avoid a top-down approach.” This time, he said, a broad spectrum of citizens including scientists, journalists and professors should contribute ideas for a new constitution.

Ah! so here we have a more inclusive approach; Schssel wants to include scientists professors and journalists, instead of simply politicians, one thing wrong with that idea, from one of the great unwashed, is like the politicians, these professions have been doing well out of the EU for years, they are part of takers in the EU system the ones whose jobs have been enhanced and in many cases actually rely on the EU for their livelihood, where would all those professors of EU law and EU politics be without the EU? Where would all those Brussels reporters be without the EU. I find it odd that the professions the EU has been cultivating in its effort to create an EU demos for years should be earmarked as just the sort of people to contribute to a new Constitution.

But to be fair to him Schssel is not totally uncritical of the EU he said “There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes,” notably “an extension of communitarian law by the European court.” He said A recent decision by EU judges to force national treasuries to reimburse companies for tax losses outside their home countries was among a series of “backdoor decisions of the European court” that Schssel said served to extend EU law without politicians’ prior agreement.

Curtailing the ECJ ability to extend EU law beyond that agreed by politicians and entered into treaties, was one of areas covered by The Laeken Declaration and although it was rejected by Giscard d’Estaing, was one of the clauses in the Alternative Report on the Constitution that emanated from Valery Giscard d Estaing convention œTHE EUROPE OF DEMOCRACIES This report, signed by eight members who said As members of the Convention, we cannot endorse the draft European Constitution. It does not meet the requirements of the Laeken Declaration of December 2001.

They also said The transfer of more decision-making from Member States to the Union, concerning criminal justice matters and new areas of domestic policy, will make the Union more remote.

The Constitution Gives no assurance about how power is to be shared, particularly as Member States will be forbidden to legislate in these areas if the Union decides to act. And that The EU Court in Luxembourg will decide on any doubt.

The draft Constitution fails to address the 97,000 accumulated pages of the acquis communautaire.

The Constitution gives more power to all the existing EU institutions and creates a Europe of Presidents, with more jobs for politicians and less influence for the people.
Not one competence will be returned to Member States.

The Constitution concentrates more executive and budgetary power in the very EU institutions which have been the subject of repeated and continuing scandals over mismanagement, waste and fraud.

They made the point that The Laeken Declaration, only suggested the possibility of a Constitution and was not a call for a constitution.

And most importantly

the draft EU Constitution was never drafted through normal democratic methods. Giscard did not allow democracy and normal voting in the Convention. The draft Constitution runs counter to all democratic principles.

This is the Constitution that was rejected by the French and the Dutch before they stopped the ratification process, which prevented us and other peoples also rejecting not only the constitution, but in many cases, the very idea of allowing the EU to become a constitutionally based organisation.

So; Mr Schssel would like to take this present unwanted Constitution drafted by an undemocratic process, and rewrite parts of it with the assistance of people whos jobs depend on the EU, and then have it ratified in tandem with European parliamentary elections in 2009, I suppose, to make it even more confusing to the people who would vote on whether to accept it or not, always assuming they actually allow us a vote, or to vote nationally. Whilst in the meantime all those things the federalists wanted in the Constitution are being implemented by the back door. Democracy my foot!