eurealist.co.uk

Guido Fawkes` Blog is covering a money laundering operation story; the Government is apparently donating tax payer’s money through the DTI to the Unions to the tune of 10 million, for union modernisation?

This amount oddly, just about balances the funding the labour party receives from the unions at 11 million, thus saving union members a cool 10 million, which they would otherwise “supposedly” have to pay for the “modernisation” of their own unions.

I do not know what arguments have been forwarded by the DTI to back up its decision to spend our taxes on supporting unions, or what checks are being made by the government to ensure that the Unions are actually spending and extra £10 million on modernisation. It would be interesting to find out why the Labour Government should think that donating 10 million pounds to the unions would be a benefit to the countries taxpayers. The unions are after all nothing more than workers organisations, which of course have every right to support any political party they wish with the money donated their members. The taxpayer has no part to play in a private arrangement between the Union leaders and the Labour party, as one commenter on Guido Fawkes` Blog says:

The unions funding Labour is fine if that is what their members want. The taxpayers subsidising the unions is a new development started this year. The £10m bung “for modernisation” is equivalent to the support the unions give Labour. It’s a subsidy to the Labour party from the taxpayer with the money washed through the unions.

I can only agree with the sentiment, if this were happening in any other sphere of public life, I am quite sure as voters we would be demanding an explanation.

How the Labour Party Washes Money from the Taxpayer via the Unions

Technorati Tags: Labour Government, unions funding Labour, tax
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Home Secretary confirm that people are right in thinking that this is all part of an EU requirement to prepare for a common system across Europe, and that that is why he is in such a hurry to get rid of our liberties in this respect?

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to confirm that that is total nonsense. There is no proposal either for an EU identity card or for an EU-wide card of any sort. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal on the table. What has been discussed in the EU is biometrics for passports and biometrics for residents’ documents. That has been discussed not only in the EU but in countries throughout the world—especially the United States—as a means of helping people to travel more effectively. There is no requirement, and the canard, if I might use a Frenchism, that this is all an EU plot—something that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes suggests—is not true in this instance.

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I agree with my right hon. Friend about the lack of an EU conspiracy. However, will he comment on why the UK alone is going down the route of having a centralised data base and an audit trail, which is not in line with recommendations that are coming from Europe?

Mr. Clarke: There are no recommendations coming from Europe on this matter so that the issue of being in line does not arise.

Clarke is being somewhat economical in that he is right to say there are no recommendations coming from the EU, that the government have to meet, but it would be misleading to say there was no EU involvement in ID cards, or to try to infer that the EU was not interested in and EU wide ID scheme.

See page 17 re ID cards COM (2000) 257 final 3.5.2000. (27 pages)

(Adoption by the European Parliament and Council of a package of Regulations on a uniform format for the EU passport, identity card and residence permit. (Their emphasis)

Conclusions of Brussels Presidency, 32 pages. Re ID card, page 18

The European Council invites the Council, the Commission and Member States to continue their

efforts to integrate biometric identifiers in travel documents, visa, residence permits, EU citizens’

passports and information systems without delay and to prepare for the development of minimum

standards for national identity cards, taking into account ICAO standards.

The Hague Report. 33 pages. ID cards Page 17

Another document, Council of European Union Brussels 11^th November 2005. 14351/05

Subject Draft Conclusions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on common minimum security standards for Member States’ national identity Cards.

ID Cards: EU launches European Biometrics Portal to assist governments”

http://www.europeanbiometrics.info/index.php

The Government would like us to belive that the ID cards are their idea and that the implementation would have no impact on an EU wide basis, or that the EU would not have a say in either the content of these cards or the exchange of the data which will be collected for the national data base.

From Lords Hansard 23 Nov 2005: Column 1667 Lord Stoddart of Swindon “The problem is that if it were decided by the European Union that we should have a Europe-wide card, they would, without further reference to this House or this Parliament, be able to insert various requirements themselves, perhaps even one for DNA. That would be imposed on our citizens, whether they liked it or not. If I am not mistaken, the decision would come not under the basis of unanimity, but on the basis of qualified majority. Therefore we could have items imported into our system of a national register for the national identity card which our own Parliament, after proper discussion and assurances have been given by Ministers, did not want and particularly sought to exclude.”

Baroness Scotland of Asthal reply’s : Identity cards are only an intergovernmental issue; the EU has no competence on the matter.

Lord Stoddart: I appreciate that at present it is an intergovernmental matter; but she will be aware that the European constitution has been signed by all member states. Indeed, it is still a live issue, although there is a period for reflection on the matter, following the rejection of the constitution by France and the Netherlands. Does she agree that under the constitution intergovernmentalism will be no more, because the constitution will collapse the intergovernmental position into one single entity? Therefore, does she agree that if this country was foolish enough to vote for the constitution, it would no longer be an intergovernmental operation and the European Union would have some override over our identity cards and the national register?

The interior ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom met in Heiligendamm, Germany, on 22 and 23 March 2006. They welcomed the interior minister of Poland as a new addition to their group founded in 2003.

The co-operation between the six countries is intended to provide an additional impetus to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice. Similar to a “laboratory” this small circle will draw up concrete proposals to intensify co-operation in European home affairs. Other EU Member States will be fully informed about proposals made by the G6 countries and can participate in their implementation.

In order to promote integration and fight illegal immigration and terrorism, the ministers have agreed on the following specific measures.

The ministers emphasized the major importance of successful integration for the stability of society. Against this background, they agreed on an intensive exchange of information about their integration programmes and prerequisites, particularly information on types and methods of related tests, if in place. The ministers decided to set up an expert working group to analyze the possibility and main contents of an integration contract with immigrants or comparable instruments.

4. Principle of availability

The ministers again highlighted the importance of significantly improving cross-border information exchange between law enforcement authorities, as already set out in the Hague Programme. To rapidly achieve this objective, they advocate focusing on DNA, fingerprints and motor vehicle registration data. At the same time they stressed that the promising model offered by the Prüm Treaty, including online requests and hit/no hit access, should be considered at EU level as soon as possible.

The ministers underscored that rapid implementation of the availability principle must not depend on the adoption of a framework decision on data protection in the third pillar.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments: “This self-appointed governmental pressure group sees itself as leading the way on justice and home affairs - but have they consulted their people or parliaments on the measures they are putting forward? A classic instance is their position on the so-called “principle of availability” whereby all information and intelligence (often guesswork or supposition) on individuals held by a national law enforcement agency (police, immigration, customs) can be accessed by any of the hundreds of agencies across the EU (where it can added to with more information and “intelligence” and passed on again, inside or outside the EU).

Their conclusion is that the “rapid implementation of the availability principle must not depend on the adoption of a framework decision on data protection” - in other words state agencies should be allowed to exchange information and “intelligence” without any data protection rights for the individual being in place.”

Thanks to Anne Palmer.

This morning MEP Daniel Hannan in his regular spot at the Telegraph confronts the idea of state funding for political parties,

 “If there is one thing we politicians agree on, it’s that the rest of you owe us a living. That’s why you should be alarmed that the Labour and Tory leaders are meeting tomorrow to discuss state funding for political parties. People of the same trade seldom meet together, as Adam Smith says, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public. That we elected representatives want more of your cash is hardly surprising, but our blatancy ought to shock you.

 Embarrassed by the exposure of our fund-raising methods, we cheekily suggest that the problem is not our behaviour, but the absence of support from the taxpayer. And you, poor saps, fall for it. You are so outraged at our brazenness that you miss the real scandal, namely our equation of state funding with honest politics. You splutter that the taxpayer already has plenty of demands on his wallet; but you unthinkingly accept the argument on our terms, as a trade-off between subvention and corruption.

 In fact, that argument is impossible to stand up, either in theory or in practice. The countries that are keenest on state funding - which tend to be in Europe rather than the Anglosphere - are generally the ones with the dirtiest political systems. And the rankest scandals in these nations usually involve party funding.”

 
Hannan then proceeds to illustrate his point with examples of corruption in other European countries:  “the sleaze that brought down Helmut Kohl a decade ago”,   “France, also awash with state funding, where some 700 politicians have been charged with corruption in the past decade, almost all in relation to party financing scams”

 Many of us have often been appalled at the arrogance of some European leaders, Hannan asks

“Could it be that being able to compel cash from your constituents, instead of having to ask them politely, makes you arrogant? Is it not possible that state funding, and the magic circle of parties that it creates, encourages an "us-and-them" attitude towards those who are outside the system?”

 I agree with several of the points expressed and illustrated in this article:

The way that state funding widens the gap between government and governed.

State funding prevents new parties from challenging established ones

When the state pays for political parties, it assumes that it can tell them what to believe.

“The apparatus of public funding creates a lucrative career structure for politicians

A graduate can work for his local party branch, then put in a couple of years at the attached state-funded think-tank, and then stand for parliament. Throughout his life, he has been dependent on the largesse of the taxpayer.

So it is hardly surprising that, when he becomes a minister, he is comfortable with the idea of higher taxes. This is why even the notionally centre-Right parties in Europe tend to be corporatist: it’s not just that they have to keep finding state sector posts for their supporters; they simply can’t imagine a world in which most activity is independent of the government.”

It is for this reason that I take issue with the recently published Power Report,  although it correctly identifies the problems of a lack of public involvement in politics, its suggestion that each party should receive state funding in line with the level of votes it gets, will not in any way increase accountability of political parties, it will in fact do just the opposite, by obligating us all to support political parties and the political system will insulate politicians even further from the public.  

Technorati Tags: career-politicians, british-mps, membership-of-political-parties, power-report, public-funding-of-political-parties
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

This week it was reported that the Home Office intends to link implementation of an Identity Card and National Identity Register with an EU Directive on the content of passports.

In fact, as we have repeatedly reported, the UK is not bound by the EU biometric passport regulations because it is not a signatory to the Schengen Agreements that remove border controls between EU countries. It has also emerged that EU member states are to replace national drivers licences with EU licences that will only last 10 years and look set to contain a microchip containing data about the owner. The issuing of new licences will be obligatory from 2012.

The government will no doubt use this directive as an excuse for linking licence renewal to national identity registration. In November 2005, during the UK’s presidency, EU ministers attending a summit in Manchester unanimously approved the ‘Manchester Declaration’ which says:

“Member States will, during 2006, agree a process and roadmap for achieving the electronic identity objectives and address the national and European legal barriers to the achievement of the electronic identity objectives. Work in this area is essential for public administrations to deliver personalised electronic services with no ambiguity as to the user’s identity.”

No 2ID

Ping pong ends after record breaking 6 bats, On Wednesday the Identity Cards Bill was passed by parliament. The endgame began on Monday the House of Lords voted by 219 to 191 to amend the ID cards bill and duly sent it back to the Commons for a 5th time. At issue was the nature of voluntary ID registration for passport applicants. Lord Armstrong proposed an opt-out clause, whereby with a passport application/renewal an ID card and National Identity Register entry would be made unless the applicant specifically requested to opt-out. On Tuesday afternoon this amendment was rejected by MPs and the bill returned to the House of Lords once again. On Tuesday evening Lord Armstrong offered up another amendment that was dubbed “a compromise” and which the government indicated they would accept. The so called “compromise” was that up until 1st January 2010 passport applicants can opt out of receiving an ID card - but they will be compulsorily registered on the National Identity Register. Those of us that know what is wrong with the government’s scheme know that it is the database behind the cards that is the issue, not the plastic card itself. The Lords however seemed to miss this crucial point and voted to accept Lord Armstrong’s amendment by 287 to 60.

The bill then returned to the Commons for a sixth and final time last night, when MPs voted by 301 to 84 to accept peers’ amendments. A shocking 250 MPs abstained. The Home Secretary revealed that even if passport applicants opt not to have a plastic ID card they will still have to pay the full price of a combined passport and ID card. He also revealed that passport holders entered onto the National Identity Register would be subject to the database’s audit trail, the building blocks of total surveillance.

A few MPs did speak against this abysmal piece of legislation.

Nick Clegg MP said: “The introduction of identity cards will usher in one of the most far-reaching changes in British public life in recent times. [...] It will revolutionise the capacity of the state to monitor the movements and behaviour of each and every one of us. It erodes privacy, and in extremis it will curtail freedom”.

Bill Cash MP said: “The Bill should be excoriated and put in the dustbin. I shall not support it under any circumstances whatsoever.”

Simon Hughes MP said: “If the Home Secretary thinks this is the end of the matter, he is wrong. Many of us have made it absolutely clear that we will do everything in our power, personally and on behalf of other people, never to have identity cards or to be on a national identity register. I encourage everybody listening and watching to renew their passports now so that they will not have to be subject to the ID card regime for the next 10 years. I hope that many will do so.”

Richard Sheperd MP said: “One day, this Government will experience the wrath and indignation of a country that understands that this is not a small social measure; it is in fact a declaration by Government that the centralised state is more important and greater than the sum of every individual free citizen of the country that we were sent to represent.”

Stuart Hosie MP said: “When the scale of the opposition to carrying an ID card or to being included on a central biometric database rises to the scale of the opposition we saw to the poll tax, I fear that the entire edifice will collapse.”

Science & Technology committee hear evidence against ID card scheme

Last week(22nd March) the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee held a session on the proposed ID card scheme. It emerged that the Home Office does not know what technologies they will use, nor have they tested any systems - apparently that will take place during the procurement phase. The chairman of the committee was surprised at the Home Office’s optimism with regards to delivering the scheme, as the committee had, he said, been talking to the US Department of Homeland Security about ID in the US. US officials said that “the technology was not there and that they were not in a position even to recommend to the administration that a procurement process should start”. Maybe the US are waiting to see what kind of a mess the Home Office make of ID cards here first.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/uc900-iii/uc90002.htm

RFID Viruses and Worms

It has emerged that RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips are susceptible to viruses and worms. A report produced by the University of Amsterdam details ‘Well-Known RFID Threats’, ‘RFID-Based Exploits’ and ‘RFID-Based Viruses’. The report warns that “data from RFID tags can be used to exploit back-end software systems”. The UK will begin rolling out biometric passports containing a facial biometric from October. The new passports will contain an RFID style contactless chip containing the facial image and biographical data.
See http://www.rfidvirus.org/index.html

Torqay NO2ID begin campaigning

Spring is the season of regrowth and so this morning the fledgling Torquay NO2ID started campaigning in Lower Union Street (outside what used to be Dixons) from 10am to 1pm. Torquay co-ordinator, Jim Camp, would like to pass on his appreciation to Brighton NO2ID for the invaluable experience he
with them. Contact for more information about the Torquay group.

Blue Peter badge ID cards

The BBC announced this week that they are considering issuing a photo ID card to accompany Blue Peter badges after the coveted trinkets have appeared on the auction website ebay. The badges have been touted on ebay as a way of gaining free entry to zoos and stately homes. The BBC are considering issuing bona-fide badge winners with a photo ID card, though they have made no mention of a centralised database or the inclusion of biometrics. We imagine the government will be watching this one closely for ways to cut the astronomical ID card scheme budget using washing up bottles and sticky back plastic.

Correction: newsletter 41 - ID Sniper rifle - Reality stranger than fiction

In the last newsletter an item, ‘Implanting a GPS-microchip in the body of a human being’, appeared in the ‘ID in the news’ section. The story was actually about a hoax engineered by Danish artist Jakob S. Boeskov together with writer Mads Brugger and designer Kristian von Bengston. In June 2002 they founded a fake company ‘Empire North’ and touted their non-existent weapon at an arms fair, ‘China Police 2002′, in Beijing. Looking at current trends in GPS tagging they thought it would “merely be a question of time before the technology would be used pre-emptively on suspicious persons”. Delegates at the fair clearly agreed and were eager to get their hands on the technology…

No 2ID