eurealist.co.uk

Several letters to the Times argue that George Osborne should have acknowledged in a recent article that Irelands current prosperity is partly due to its membership of the euro and the amount of funding it receives from the EU.

The Times

Technorati Tags: George Osborne, euro, EU, funding, The Times

No only Joking!
Italy appeals to EU over merger and argues that Europe is dead

The French merger of Suez SA and Gaz de France is said to be causing consternation in Italy. An editorial in the WSJ argues that the French “head-on challenge to the single market calls into question the raison d’etre behind the European Union far more than the constitutional crisis of last year did.” Commission Vice-President Franco Frattini “What has happened in Paris risks dealing a blow to the European spirit of the single market.”

However In France they have a different perspective:

It was an act of “economic patriotism” (Dominique de Villepin)

Economic patriotism is not the same thing as protectionism (Clara Gaymard from Invest in France)

“everything which strengthens French industry strengthens the whole of Europe.” (French foreign ministry) Good one that, I wonder if it would work should our Tone be tempted to try it?

The Power Report

I have read not all of this report, but must say in general I feel that the recommendations are those which are to be expected - chaired by Labour Peer Helena Kennedy and funded by the Liberal leaning Joseph Rowntree Trust - many of its conclusions are predictable.

As Richard North says;

Taking the view that the current disengagement (with party politics) is not a “little local difficulty” but rather the result of a profound contempt for formal politics. There is a popular view that our political institutions and politicians are failing, untrustworthy and disconnected from the people they are supposed to represent.

Interestingly, the(power) Commission spent £800,000 on finding that out. If they had asked us, we could have told them that for free.”

And, while none of the media go even into that depth, none mention that on which the Inquiry does devote some space, our favourite topic, the European Union. On page 62, it says:
Supranational bodies and processes of international negotiation such as the European Union have gained extra powers and influence at the expense of nationally and locally elected representatives. The direction and sometimes the detail of wide areas of policy are now heavily influenced by, or determined by, decisions taken by appointed officials working in supranational organisations or by politicians and civil servants in negotiations with their overseas counterparts.

The result of these shifts has been to make political decision-making more opaque, hidden and complex. It means that the people who take key decisions are more likely to be geographically, socially and politically distant from the people who are affected by their de-cisions. It also means that decision-makers are less directly account-able to those who are affected by their decisions and rarely engaged in dialogue with them. The Power Commissioners saw at first-hand how a lack of real influence over decision-makers has become a primary cause of alienation from formal democracy, and recognise that those processes which have produced greater distance between governed and governors are a source of deep concern.”

The Power Commissions report does not suggest returning power to the National institutions to meet these concerns, but proposes instead a decentralisation of powers that still remain in Westminster, so its back to EU sponsored regionalisation. Which those in the loop will keep promoting, even though it was rejected 78% to 22% in the only electoral test it has ever received.

Other recommendations
“A responsive electoral system for the House of Commons, House of Lords and local councils to replace the first-past-the-post system”. This is PR which is something that will place even more power in the hands of the political parties. Coupled with “State funding for local activity by political parties”. And “Local government should be able to raise taxes and administer its own finances” This seems to be a charta for the parties, not only will they get more power, but we will be forced to pay for it. Why should parties that can’t raise the sums necessary to campaign locally be kept afloat by the taxpayer, who will decide that the BNP will not receive funds?”
“The Electoral Commission to encourage women, ethnic minorities, people on lower incomes, young people and independents to stand” This is no more than promoting a liberal adgenda. “The voting and candidacy age should be reduced to 16” Get them whilst they are still in school where they are influenced by the liberal adgenda, this will go hand in hand with the EU propaganda being promoted in our education facilities. “70 per cent of the House of Lords should be elected by a ‘responsive electoral system’ for three parliamentary terms”. More PR, it is not how the lords are elected or selected that matters, it is the power the second house has to control government and its responsibilities to maintaining a constitutional settlement. “All public bodies to involve the public in their policy- making processes” another EU related idea consultation which can be ignored, instead of real democratic power. “Citizens to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies”.
A charter for pressure-group politics, and a stipulation that tells you everything about the people who wrote the Power Report: judges can strike down any initiative, at any stage, that they deem to be in conflict with the Human Rights Act. Many of us belive the Human rights act removes power from the voters.

A letter today in the Telegraph today makes the point “The Power Commission (News, February 27) concludes that the source of electoral apathy is people believing they don’t have any power and are not listened to. This is a myth. The problem is that they are listened to far too much.

The result, via market research, is that the average (centrist) opinion is in the policy bag of every major party. Politicians used to represent the interests of their supporters and intentionally upset large swaths of their opponents. Nowadays they all try to represent the average voter, who does not exist, but is merely a statistical construct.

The Average Party is now in power, or trying to be, all the time. Boring! Even worse, it represents nobody.”

From The Brussels Journal, an interesting comparison between the structures and ideologies of the EU and the former Soviet Union.

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

A snip from his speech

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?”

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.