Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Someone has created a fake of my blog!

Following a Google Alert I was very surprised to find a replica of my blog, that someone has bizarrely gone to a lot of trouble making.

Quite who is behind this hoax is a complete mystery but I thought I should make it quite clear I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. The fake blog address is http://corbettmep.blogspot.com/, and they appear to be simply be cutting pasting from my actual blog.

Thanks!

Labels: blogging

posted by Richard Corbett MEP @ 14:59

I take back everything I said! My link leads to the one with comments, I will not link to a blog that posts contentious views of the EU but does not permit the other side the right of reply
So Mr Corbett if you have not yet got the message from the spoof and the people of this country, we want our voices to be heard and are sick and tired of being ignored by our employees.

Technorati Tags:
Richard Corbett MEP, Blog spoof,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Daniel Finkelstein in the Times

Says, we pay for MPs. They are our employees. But how badly we treat them as we argue about trivia such as their expenses.

Is`nt it funny how the concept of English common law can be raised to protect MPs when it suits them to do so, but has no consideration at all when it comes to the legislation they let pass through our parliament.

This is the same lot who voted through the Lisbon treaty which will have the affect of outsourcing much of their remaining work load to the EU, the same lot who voted to break their election pledges to allow a referendum on the Constitution and also voted against the amendment on that treaty:

Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.

It is long past time that we made them accountable for their own actions, just over thirty years ago this parliament was responsible for 100% of all laws passed in this country, that has been reduced drastically in the intervening years with measures they have introduced to outsource power to the regions and to the EU. Given that every one of them take an oath of allegiance to protect this sovereign nation state it is clear they have broken that oath.

If they are our employees they are only employed for a period of up to five years and entrusted with our individual sovereignty only for that period, they are not given the authority to pass the power we give then out of our control, but must hand it back in it’s entirety after that period, this they have failed to do, so as employees they have broken their own contract of employment. Mr Finkelstein would probably argue against that, if that is the case than may I snuggest with the utmost respect that he does not try to raise the spectre of British Constitution when the very people he is using it to protect hold that constitution is such contempt.

Technorati Tags:
Finkelstein, English common law, MPs our employees, EU Lisbon treaty
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Debate on Quaequam Blog
Which claimed the Constitution was 95% the same as the previous treaties.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.

I will go into this a bit later, but first I would like to put to bed the difference between a treaty and a constitution - a treaty is the expression of sovereign power, a constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power, i.e. without sovereign power you cannot exercise an expression of that sovereignty by making a treaty.

Things now get a bit complicated because we have a situation with the European Project where sovereign states make a treaty between themselves to pass a proportion of their sovereignty to a supranational third party, that treaty then becomes the constitution of the third party. The founding treaty of the UN, the WTO, the Council of Europe etc. fall into the same category, as they all become the constitution of the third party.

Now it begins to get very complicated because in the case of the EU unlike the other international organisations the power does not remain at all times within in member state, whereas with the other organisations it does or to be honest is has so far. In the UN for instance the power to veto any proposal always stays within the member state.

The basic difference is in the foundations of the Project the framers of the Project constructed a supranational, not an intergovernmental, set of institutions, the EU is what is known as, path-dependent, in that all the institutions of today were there in embryo form in the original treaties constitution of the Project. The path and the basic direction and the end result of the project are all predetermined and any differences which can be observed are nothing more than temporary opt outs or temporary delays.

When one starts to talk about percentage change it should be remembered that only slight changes to clauses can make a great deal of difference to the meaning and the following actions that will result from the commitment made by our government when signing the treaties.

As illustration only: the Maastricht treaty states: Thanks to EU Referendum

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

This is changed slightly in the Amsterdam treaty and again in the Nice treaty, by the time of the Constitution it has become a different animal from a very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially:eventual framing of a common defence has become the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy and “might in time” has become “will”.

The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

You have asked several time in the comments what are the major difference between the previous treaties and Lisbon/Constitution there are so many that it would be impossible to list them all here, but the real major change is the Constitution and Lisbon both fundamentally change the basic structure of the EU and its relationship to its member states.

Its laws and its Constitution are made superior to those of the member states. Please do not fall into the trap of arguing that EU law has always been superior to state law it has not, because it has never been in any of the other treaties.

The EU becomes an actor on the international stage in its own right and is invested with the power for the first time to both join international organisations such as the UN and to make international treaties in own right.

The Council of the EU becomes an institution of the EU and is obliged to act in the interests of the EU first.

Our own parliament is obliged to consider the interests of the EU.

Our nations foreign policy is weakened considerably in that we mat not take any action without first consulting our partners in the EU with the intention of ensuring that the EU`s interest is promoted.

The reason we should have a referendum on this treaty is because it radically changes our own Constitution, this is not a Eurosceptic myth, but a fact which is proven by the Irish having to hold referendum, because it is written into its constitution that changes can only be made after holding a referendum, also the French have just recently voted to change their constitution to allow for the introduction of the Lisbon treaty.

Sorry this was so long, but I was struck by your contention that EU sceptics were guilty of a logical fallacy, something I knew to be wrong and I wondered how you could have reached that conclusion, you did so by making the basic assumption with the original post, that the Constitution was 95% the same as the treaties, it is not, it is radically different and as the Lisbon treaty makes all the institutional changes that were in the Constitution it too is radically different. After ratification we will be in a totally different EU with totally different balance of powers between the supranational and the national governments.

Technorati Tags:
treaty, constitution, European Project, Council of Europe, referendum, The EU,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

I have refused to link to Richard Corbett MEP because I understood that he did not allow comments for the same reason I have avoided even reading him. For some reason I just did and it is evident that he has now authorised comments.

Hence I have now added him to my blogroll by way of welcoming him to the world of Bloging.

Headlines make the point that polling has taken the place of democracy, instead of allowing us the people a real voice we are inundated with the results of polls conducted and financed by the EU.

The EU relies on the results of polling to pretend that it is listening to the people, several times this week I have come across headlines that claim the people of Europe want the EU to do this or expect the EU to do that, and because the EU does not have to ever face the public the EU can and does choose which of the polling results it will listen to those which support its plans are promoted to give a veneer of respectability those which fail to deliver the required answer are quietly dropped.

The majority of people in western Europe want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, is one headline that is certainly not going to be promoted by the EU, have they even asked the question?

This puts into perspective EU Business headline Majority of west Europeans back big name for EU president

However the article then goes on to explain that this is only the results of an internet poll conduced for the Financial Times by Harris.

So how can they claim that majority of us in Western Europe want someone like Blair to be the first president, the same is true of all the other polls the EU uses to back its claim of being democratic.

And we also have the famous participatory democracy, part of the EU commissions plan D project run by Margot Wallström, which according to the blurb

is intended to stimulate a wider debate between the European Union’s democratic institutions and citizens

In November last year Margot Wallström kindly allowed one of the British invites (Helen Duffett) of a pilot, to write a post for her blog. Explaining how exiting it was to be selected at random as the British representative to go on to the Synthesis Event in Brussels on 9 and 10 May. The purpose of this event was to bring together the results of all 27 National Consultations and to identify the recommendations which should go forward to the EU summit in June. Helen told us that she was mindful that she should pass on the UK views accurately, allowing no personal bias.

So now instead of 6000 (Harris poll) some apparently from the USA, which itself is very small sample, being asked questions, on which to form EU policy, the system of participatory democracy whittles that down to 27 invited individuals who feel confident that they can pass on the views of the rest of all the other people in their state.

My comment at the time still stands;

Helen I am glad you enjoyed your time, but you should remember that participatory democracy is not real democracy, the purpose of real democracy is not to “stimulate a wider debate” and with the greatest of respect you were not in a position to “pass on the UK views accurately” Those views will only be known when we all get a say and we can all make a choice and when once that choice has been made the political leaders must accept that choice.

Real Democracy is not on the EU agenda so instead the EU will use those who are willing to participate in such democratic charades to inform its policy, but of course with always the proviso that they get to make the final decision on whether to accept your recommendations or to consign them to the rubbish bin, Real Democracy happens when the rubbish bin is not an option.

Now I fully accept that the headline about what sort of President the majority of us want for the EU is not going to be the final word on the subject, that will be left to horse trading in secret by the members of the council of the EU, but it is polling which will be used to inform that horse trading.

The EU system has been specifically designed to remove the participation of the peoples of Europe’s in its decisions and to also be a self supporting in that it does not require the participation of the peoples. So polling and plan D are nothing more than propaganda techniques designed to make people like Helen Duffy feel that they have a voice in the proceedings, whilst the rest of us can feel confident that the Helens in the future who will be invited and then randomly selected, have the capacity to pass on the UK views accurately.

In reality our democracy is being participated and polled to death.

Technorati Tags:
referendum. Lisbon Treaty, Tony Blai, democracy in the EU, participatory democracy,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

I start from the position that one should never ever sign a legal document unless they are quite clear of the meaning of the document and what the effect of putting their signature to a legally enforceable document the will have in the event of a dispute between the parties.

We are constantly told that this is the normal practice - do not sign anything unless you are quite sure of its meaning - if you are unsure obtain legal advice and have the document examined by a legal professional who will be able to protect your interests.

This advice is the same if we are buying a car on HP buying a house, purchasing insurance in fact signing up to anything.

It is also becoming the norm for the government to insist on clarity pre-contract; on insurance for instance;

It is clearly important that insurers are able to obtain sufficient information from

potential policyholders to assess risks properly.

In fact the government is clearly very much on board with the idea of clarity, Harriet Harman she said she wanted;

Parliament to communicate more clearly with the people. We applaud these efforts to make the path to reading and understanding planned legislation more straightforward

The governments commitment to clear information can also be seen in their Home Information Pack literature

The packs aim to increase confidence in the sale process from the start by providing key information up front.

For buyers, the Pack provides essential information about properties they are considering buying - free of charge - and reduces the chance of unwelcome surprises later on in the process.

But not is seems when it comes to the EU constitution! The German leader made a commitment to bring back the rejected EU constitution and set in motion a series of secret bilateral talks with other states in order to construct a method by which the EU could work round the blockage and to prevent any further chances that the people s of the EU member state could put a spanner in the works.

Angela Merkel was congratulated by the Plain English Campaign for writing the EU’s 50th birthday statement in plain language.

But a few months later and the PEC condemned the EU for deliberately making the Lisbon Treaty unreadable; the Plain English Campaign condemns this as an act of deception by the EU.

That there was intended deception has been common knowledge and has been confirmed by several EU leaders, Giuliano Amato said the new European Union treaty is deliberately ‘unreadable’

The PEC again

This is a damning verdict on the new EU Treaty and the intentions of the people who produced it”. “It is another example of language being used to confuse an important issue. Plain language is essential if we are to have true democracy.”

If !

The Government and the EU for that matter are quite capable of using plain English or plain any other language for that matter when it suits their purpose, as it did when they wrote the Constitution, but when the people rejected it, they soon reverted to secret negotiations and obscure language to hide their intentions.

I am absolutely sure that as the next election approaches we will be bombarded with an avalanche of plain English, the politicians know that to get their message across and get us to vote for them they are going to have to speak in plain English, the only reason there can be for the present lack of plain English is because they want to deceive us. And as they want to deceive us they must have something to hide which they desperately do not want us to know.

Technorati Tags:
pre-contract clarity, EU constitution, Angela Merkel, Plain English, deception by the EU,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Through sort of my own fault I have recently lost my old eurealist blog I was hosted with Siteground who sent me enough reminders that both the domain name and my hosting were due to expire last Sunday.

The problem started on Sunday when I tried to pay the renewal fees, Siteground computer for some reason would not accept credit my card, I tried so many times that in the end my credit card company phoned to see if my card had been lost or stolen. I emailed siteground and asked them to sort out their computer or send me their details so I could pay by paypal three times on Sunday and again on Monday, I have to date a week later yet to receive a response.

As I already owned eurealist.co.uk I thought the best way forward was to forget the unresponsive siteground and set up new hosting and redirect as much as possible to the new site.

As luck would have it and strangely for me I had backed up all of my posts and comments, so I was able to quite quickly get the new site up and running and to the best of my knowledge I only lost one post and one comment in the transfer.

I am still playing with the theme for the new site by adding plugins and widgets and at the same time I thought now would be a good time to do some serious housekeeping on my links and my old posts, most of which are still in a folder which I have renamed the best of the rest -perhaps all of the rest would be a better title.

One of the widgets I have installed is called Similar Posts, it searches the archives and displays similar posts to the main post in the side bar.

I find this very interesting because it is constantly mining my whole archive, for interesting titbits, so instead of having to wade through just over a thousand old posts all at once I can do it gradually as the widget is displaying the older posts constantly.

I can also take the opportunity to re-present some of the main arguments that are constants in the evolution of the EU. For one reason the pro- EU lot do not have any new thinking as mentioned in a previous post and as the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the Constitution the arguments against it are still very much relevant today.

I was going to use this by way of an introduction to re-present a post from Jan 2005 but as this has already grown too long to be an introduction so I think I will write a separate post. Keep watching this space for more totally boring non partisan but factually based EUsceptic comment.

The E.U. “expresses its deep concern that election procedures in the Islamic Republic of Iran have fallen below the international standards and that the electoral process did not allow for truly competitive elections,” a statement said late Saturday.

“In this regard it expresses its deep regret and disappointment that over a third of prospective candidates were prevented from standing in this year’s parliamentary elections,” the E.U.’s Slovenian presidency said.

These exclusions prevented the Iranian people from being able to choose freely amongst the full range of political views in their country and represent a clear violation of the international norms.

“As a result, the election was neither fair nor free.”

It makes one feel warm all over to know the EU holds the the concept of democracy so close to its heart.

Anyone for a referendum on the EU treaty just ask the EU.

The leader of the Conservative Party proudly announced that he has a simply ambition for this country. It’s at the heart of what I believe, and what I believe our country needs.

Oh goody he is going to repeal the 1972 act of admission to the EU begin the rebuilding process of our nation state. He intends to return the power to run this country to our government the power to hold our government to account to our parliment and the power to elect our own government to the people of this country. Now that is a simple plan that should be at the heart of anyone standing for election as leader of a nation state.

Perhaps not the same one that Cameron has though.

Today I want to talk to you about a simple ambition that I have for our country. It’s at the heart of what I believe, and what I believe our country needs. My ambition is to make Britain more family-friendly.

I am sure that Sir Robert Atkins would agree with Mr Cameron family-friendly is the way to go.

Technorati Tags:
family-friendly, David Cameron, Conservtives, simple ambition,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The Daily Mail reports that Tory MEP Sir Robert Atkins has been forced to defend his fact finding trip to the USA. His claim for £2,500 was approved by the EU parliament

I have a long-standing interest in US politics which goes back to 1972

That’s alright then, I have a long standing interest in New Zealand Fly fishing that goes back to 1975, can someone tell me who will pay for my fact finding mission please.

Oh! yes just by the very strangest of coincidences is seems that Sir Robert’s son who is a Brussels lobbyist, was marrying his American fiancée just at the time Sir Robert chose to go on his fact finding mission.

Technorati Tags:
Sir Robert Atkins, trip, wedding, gravy train,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

And moving swiftly on from any further debate about the Lisbon Constitution.

Already well entrenched in education the EU decides to step up its centralisation of education, information, and knowledge.

It has been agreed spring summit, that the EU should create a fifth freedom the Freedom of Knowledge to be added to the four original principles of free movement of persons, capital, services and goods in the European Union.

As part of the initiative, the bloc has pledged to boost cross-border mobility of researchers, students, scientists and university teachers, as well as labour markets and work conditions for European researchers and further reforms in high education.

http://euobserver.com/9/25838/?rk=1

It should be noted that the other four freedoms have all resulted in integration and unification.

Technorati Tags:
Lisbon, Constitution, integration, high education, university teachers, cross-border mobility,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Defence of the Realm

I must say I was a bit puzzled to understand how on earth a radio could have save a parachutist. Many thanks to Defence of the Realm for the explanation. That it probably would not have but training probably would have.

Yellow Swordfish

Macedonian beekeeper Zoran Kiseloski, has successfully prosecuted a bear through the courts on the charge of theft and criminal damage to his hives.

PJC Journal

Culled from two different posts to give an overview of

The Infrastructure of Mass Surveillance

Have you been wondering why our government want to gather all our data together?, the NHS spine, the ID cards, the National Identity Register, Biometric Passports, the PNC, the DNA register, Fingerprinting, RFID, Car tracking, and to share the data with everyone.

“Congress shut down TIA because it represented a massive and unjustified governmental intrusion into the personal lives of Americans,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU. “Now we find out that the security agencies are pushing ahead with the program anyway, despite that clear congressional prohibition. The program described by current and former intelligence officials in Monday’s Wall Street Journal could be modeled on Orwell’s Big Brother.”

Global security and the “war on terror” now dominate the global political agenda. Driven largely by the United States, a growing web of anti-terrorism and security measures are being adopted by nations around the world. This new “security” paradigm is being used to roll back freedom and increase police powers in order to exercise increasing control over individuals and populations.

Cranmer

Cranmer brought to the attention of his readers and communicants the plight of Iraq’s Christians some time ago, not least because their systematic extermination was scarcely registering on the radar of the mainstream media. While the Iraq focus has been on a botched peace and the occasional atrocity committed by the odd deviant soldier, thousands upon thousands of Assyrian and Chaldean Christians have been ‘cleansed’ from the lands in which they and their forebears have dwelt for almost two millennia

Wonkos World

A member of a Shropshire political group has criticised the “health apartheid” of the NHS, which he claims is responsible for county patients receiving poorer services that those in Scotland and Wales.

NoseMonkey`s EUtopia

The strapline claims non partisan European Politics: Debatable: as Clive supports the EU

Tells us that two nutty anti-EU myths dispelled in one day: Debatable: as neither of the myths are myths and neither have been dispelled on the evidence offered.

GlobaL Warming Politics

Well, well, well! In this poll, “The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ or Global Warming” comes a lamentable 9th out of the 12 listed concerns. But, what is even more interesting is the fact that, for the ten environmental items that were raised in both Gallup’s 2007 and 2008 Environment Surveys, the percentage who report worrying “a great deal” about a problem is down in 2008 on 2007 for all ten issues. Valium maybe?

EU Referendum

As the credit crisis engulfed the 85-year-old Bear Stearns investment bank and the Federal Reserve with JP Morgan Chase combined to provide emergency finance, there are very real fears of an economic meltdown engulfing the global financial system.

Unfounded or not, we would still like to think that there is someone in charge on this side of the pond, with sufficient gravitas to handle any emerging crises, and to reassure us that the best possible action is being taken.

EURSOC

Every nation has its eternal students, but France seems to specialise in their production. Observers of student protests will notice scruffy thirtysomethings marching alongside fresh-faced youth. Not teachers, as you might expect, but fellow students, who entered higher education a decade or more ago and remained there long after it became undignified to do so.

Somebody recently wrote that the “Europhiliac” argument has not changed in over 35 years, perhaps because they have found it advantages to stick to the same few lines and keep repeating continually.

But first why “Europhilic” and not the more acceptable pro-EU or EU-supporter why the name calling. Well that really is more about the name calling perpetrated on us who support democracy against the oligarchic nature of the EU. This is explained by the fact that the Europhiliac simply cannot win the debate on any level, so they are forced to invent an evil, outmoded, little Englander persona for the democrat, in this way they ignore the message and concentrate their attack on the messenger. Thus they are attempting to control the debate by always putting us on the back foot by forcing us to deny their totally unfounded accusations. Of course it is not really insulting because the term Europhiliac was invented by one who described himself as a raving Europhiliac - Leon Brittan, ex EU Commissioner.

Anyway why not! What is good for the goose etc. and if they do not like that perhaps they will put a stop to their own nonsense. I am not an out of date, Nazi, Sun reading, xenophobic cretin who is afraid of foreigners, afraid of change, or one who hankers after the lost British empire and I object to being placed in that box by people who cannot hold their line in reasonable debate about the EU project.

This assault on rational behaviour is not just the preserve of the uninformed; some well known academics who do understand the EU (they also understand that it pays their research funding) also resort to this tactic to avoid reasonable debate. And many who argue from a relatively reasonable stance also cast the odd, insult albeit coached in reasonable terms, but none the less insulting to us democrats, this of course is all done with the intention to undermine the person rather than the argument. This has now got to the point where the very word Euroscpetic is used as an insult. To say you are eusceptic is to lumber yourself with all the baggage the Europhilic has been loading onto the term for thirty odd years. After all nobody even bothers to debate with a Nazi. Their views and opinions can be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of consideration.

And that is the result of the constant barrage of insults as explained at Devils Kitchen who quotes Dan Hannan writing “there are certain perceptions of EUsceptics and EUphiles: the former are consider “nasty” and the latter “nice”. it is always the sceptics who are accused of being monomaniacs, ranters, head-bangers and so on. Yet in all of this it is most often the Europhilic who is being rude and insulting and the sceptic who is using reasoned factually based arguments.

As reported on The England Blog this disgusting childish behaviour often descends into farce, but what is it that makes these people feel they have the moral right to malign any one who opposes their own view, to such an extent. We can all have differing political opinions, but not is seems if those opinions differ from the EUphiliacs.

Technorati Tags:
EU Argument, personal attacks, Nazis,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

I have been updating my blogroll this afternoon unfortunately it took a lot longer than it should because I got into reading instead of concentrating on creating the links, I have already fund one that need attention.

PJC Journal
In a free society, the rights and laws protect the individual from the government.
In a dictatorship, the rights and laws protect the government from the people.

When governments begin to abuse laws to protect their own wrongdoing, we should be rightly worried, but more so when the supposedly impartial Speaker of the House shows his bias by siding with government in a court of law.

We have for centuries trusted our judiciary to do the right thing in the protection of those members of the public who need protection from overbearing and authoritarian government, likewise we have expected that the office of the Speaker remains impartial, no matter what the event in hand.

Today, we can see this NuLab government, showing its full totalitarian and dictatorial colours, in our name and at our expense are using lawyers paid for by the taxpayer, in collusion with lawyers for the Speaker of the House, also paid for by taxpayers, in court to stop the publication of the ID Cards gateway reviews, so that you, the taxpayer may not know what the government is hiding about ID Cards.

Prodicus
Is interested in a story concerning Tory-lead Essex County Council apparently NuLab wants us all to shut the fuck up and stop pestering our local councils with awkward questions OR ELSE.

Freedom and Whisky
Dustbin of history

To be frank, there’s only so much nonsense a sensible person can take from Party C. As many others have pointed out, the Tories seem to dread the idea of positioning themselves more than 1% away from Labour. Why do focus groups support much of the status quo? Because the Tories haven’t argued for any alternative. Does anyone seriously think that they’d retake British sovereignty? Or abolish the ID Database? Or privatise schools and hospitals? Or sort out the politicians’ expense accounts? Of course not.

Ranting Stan
Rita Chakrabarti, said on Breakfast this morning. The government doesn’t have ANY spare cash - it has no cash at all.

It is OUR money - money which the government takes from us as tax under a contract for them to provide essential services which we stipulate as being a necessity for the preservation of our freedom, status and way of life.

The Anger of a Quiet Man
I s fuming about MPs John Lewis list
My God the sheer gall of these crooks in office!

MPs are allowed to claim expenses of up to £10,000 for a new kitchen, £2,000 for furniture and £750 for a TV or stereo for their second homes. Other claims allowable include £6,335 for a new bathroom, £299.99 for air conditioning units, £300 per rug, £50 for a shredder and £1,000 for a bed.
The figures are in the so-called “John Lewis list” used by Commons officials to list maximum amounts for items.
Most MPs can claim items from the list up to a maximum of £23,000 a year.

The Monarchist
asks the best question of the year “do you believe in the supremacy of Parliament” and then points out that most MPs obviously do not because they voted accordingly on an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty

‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.’

Vote Result: Yeas 40, Nays 380

For those who are interested the Tories were told to abstain. Lets remember that come election time!

Cranmer
Labour’s atheistic zealots have attempted to eradicate the last vestiges of orthodoxy from the church schools. Like the adoption agencies, they are coming under pressure to conform, and should the rising tide of intolerant secularism become unbearable, some of them may choose to go the way of the agencies and close, rather than offend their consciences. It is no exaggeration to say that centuries-old schools with Christian foundations are suffering political persecution, and it is church leaders who are having to confront the power of the state.

Climate Sceptic Why Do We Only Look At Skeptic’s Money?

I would be happy to leave funding sources and related ad hominem attacks out of climate discourse completely, but, given these attacks seem to be an element of, oh say, 99% of all media articles on the topic, why is the scrutiny completely directed at skeptics? Sure, ExxonMobil has probably spent a couple of million dollars funding skeptics. But here is an example of $1.3 billion put behind the alarmist position. And this is just one such example. Gore just raised a $5 billion fund whose success or failure entirely depends on alarmists winning the political debate. These are direct incentives powerful people now have to lobby the government for climate “action” of some sort, whether or not it makes sense, just as ADM lobbies Congress for corn ethanol subsidies that have been proven to make no sense environmentally or economically.

Apparently there are usually only ever been 20 to 30 MPs in the chamber. When they are debating the EU amendment Bill

Anoneumouse at Saxon Times asks

How these elected ARSEHOLES (the house as a whole) can vote against something that they all promised in their election manifesto’s, without hearing the argument is beyond me.

The Secret Person
Is worried about the NUT considering siding with the Palestinians and tell them to teach facts and critical thinking, provide both sides of the story.

Waking Hereward
Is fuming at the BBC well someone has to.

The BBC has, since 1997 (year Zero), let itself become corrupted, emasculated of independence, denuded of integrity - eagerly prostituting itself and its core values in order to fulfil NuLabour’s basket case view of YouKay PLC and ‘Britain-Lite’ - (England, to you and me). As surely as Matthew Corbett shoving his hand up Sooty’s furry little sphincter, the BBC has obeyed, followed orders, rolled over and waved the white flag of surrender - in absolute awe of its Huggy-beared bedallioned pimp - the Government. And in turn, buggered us into a stupifying oblivion.

Thanks to a tip by email from Josephine White, apparently there was big flare up involving the Europhile blogging MEP Richard Corbett ( I won`t link to his blog because he does not allow comments thus ensuring he can put across is own warped view without fear of contradiction)

Roger Helmer reports on his blog that

In a meeting of the Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, they were debating the poor turnout in Euro-elections, and the apparent voter disengagement from the European project. Apperent Mr Helmer?

When Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott pointed out that they could hardly expect Irish voters to engage with the EU when the EU parliament had just voted against respecting the result of the Irish Referendum. (an amendment that simply said “This house will recognise the outcome of the Irish Referendum”)

At which point Corbett became apoplectic, shouting

“No we didn’t”

His hole digging explanation was the Parliament was not voting to reject the outcome of the Irish referendum, he said.

Not at all. It was merely voting not to put that wording into the text of the report.

And why he continued “with his hole” did we not want to put those words in the report? Why, said Corbett, because

“It is self-evident that this parliament would respect the outcome of any national referendum — not just Ireland”.

“Self evident” and “respect” seem to have morphed into new meanings like a lot of words once in the hands of the EU demophiles.

As Roger Helemer points out the EU parliament was quite happy to reject

the Danish referendum on Maastricht (1992);

the Irish Referendum on the Nice Treaty (2000);

and most spectacularly the French and Dutch referendum results on the EU Constitution in 2005.

Roger Helmer also apologises in the post about abstaining on the Irish vote and claims a mistake.

Technorati Tags:
Democracy, EU Constitution, Eu Propaganda, Political Elites, Richard Corbett, Rogger Helmer, Irish Referendum,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

AH Ha! just as I wrote that NM (please excuse the initials but I simply cannot take seriously someone who calls himself Nose Monkey, and I believe that the issues he raises are serious) was convinced that the reform of the EU was a possibility, he comes up with a post in which he explores this contention further.

But not of course without the usual put downs of we who rely on historic evidence to back our claim that the EU is far from being re-formable in the way we want.

NM invites us to answer the question:

How can hardcore anti-EU types maintain that reform is impossible yet simultaneously believe that the EU is heading towards a superstate - which would, in itself, be an immense reform?

Perhaps this is the wrong question a much better question would be how can someone continue to believe the EU can be reformed against all the historic evidence that it cannot?

The point is, as usual, the question is loaded, not only does Dr North EU Referendum not make the claim that the EU is heading towards a “super state” but rather a super overarching government. Further NM is misrepresenting our position, we do not believe the EU is incapable of reform, in fact it is continually reforming itself on its march toward its goal of a totally unified Europe. If that were not the case then there would not be the necessity for so many reforming treaties.

Monnet as NM mentioned is often misquoted, however not on the substance of his Method but on the words, and certainly not on his declaration that the direction of the “Project” was towards a United States of Europe. Thus whilst airily dismissing the quotes of modern superstatists! Such as “Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker” NM conveniently ignores all of the present evidence that the goal of a fully united Europe is still the driving force of the EU.

He would rather have us believe that the ideal of a fully united Europe is not now on the agenda and it is only diehard anti EU types who use old quotes of long dead EU autocrats to bolster an outmoded view of the EU.

Yet the Laeken declaration made it clear that the dream is still very much alive and still at the heart of the EU. That this remains the goal is made absolutely clear, and that clarity directly contradicts the notion that the dream is dead, with clauses such as “the dream of a strong, unified Europe” and “The unification of Europe is near.”

NM ask us to take a gander at the “failed compromises that are the Treaty of Nice and Lisbon Treaty” Yet each and every EU treaty including the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon, makes the claim that the people of the EU member states want the EU to work towards further integration. This confirmation of the Monnet message reaches forwards across the decades, in the treaties and in the actions of the EU. Showing us without a doubt, that the EU is not the least incapable of reform, it is just that it is always reforming and seeking reform in one direction only.

What the EU is incapable of, is letting go of the original dream of a united Europe.

Even the idea of a multi-tier, multi-speed EU on which NM relies as a basis for the future of the Project, is only a mechanism in the direction towards a fully united Europe, as the various tiers are only evidence of differing speeds towards the goal of a fully united Europe rather than differing objectives. The EU objectives are set out in the EU treaties, for all of us to read and they do not indicate the slightest intention that the ideal of a fully united Europe is not now the goal.

This idea that the multi-tier, multi-speed is only a mechanism for further unification is made abundantly clear in one of his links; to the EU s own website

“Multi-speed” Europe is the term used to describe the idea of a method of differentiated integration whereby common objectives are pursued by a group of Member States both able and willing to advance, it being implied that the others will follow later.

and again Romano Prodi

At this point, a vanguard of countries could…be the best way to proceed towards a more integrated union, on condition that door remains always open to those countries willing to join later,”

No I am very much afraid that the ideal of a fully united Europe is still very much alive and still very much at the centre of the European project. And anything else is only evidence that some members feel their citizens do not want to proceed at this pace at this time rather than they do not want to proceed ever. The EU will advance a fast as it can and as slowly as it must, but it will advance, even if it means waiting for us to elected a unifying government.

If the pro EU “it wont happen” brigade want to offer us some convincing evidence then perhaps they could work towards an EU treaty that does not contain the dream of a fully unified Europe, a treaty that does not protect the Acquis, a treaty that returns power to the member states. Instead of the integrating unifying treaties that have historically been offered to us, and then forced through our parliaments on a three line whip, without the chance for us the people of this country to give or refuse our consent to the constant changes of the way we are governed.

Technorati Tags:
EU Constitution, Eu Propaganda, Founding Fathers, The EU, UK Government, reform of the EU
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

In my previous post I remarked that I had recently been exchanging views with NM, the exchanges developed to include my challenge to NM assertion that renegotiations of treaties affect the man in the street not a jot (that he’d notice). And he also very much doubts we’ll notice any impact on our day to day existence nce the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.

Of course this is the pro EU line, by downplaying the effects of our membership they believe we little people will not become overly fractious about the ongoing integration.

Mark Leonard the Europhile or perhaps a better term would be Demophobe1. writer Executive Director European Council on Foreign Relations and previously Director of Foreign Policy at the Centre for European Reform (both unmitigated Europhile organisations), explained

Europe’s power is easy to miss. Like an ‘invisible hand’, it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British

law courts, and British civil servants are still here, but they have all become agents of the European Union implementing European law. This is no accident.

By creating common standards that are implemented through national institutions, Europe can take over countries without necessarily becoming a

target for hostility… Europe’s invisibility allows it to spread its influence without provocation.

Leonard made those comments in 2005 so one might wonder why mention it now? the answer is because those words are the foreword to Open Europe latest information pamphlet

The EU and You How the EU affects everyday life in the UK

Open Europe points out that

“The EU now has powerful influence on our everyday lives. But as a result of the way EU legislation operates, it is often not clear to either voters or even journalists when a particular decision or policy originates in the EU.

Domestic legislation often is actually a “shell” for the purpose of implementing

European law. And often, even if EU legislation has not wholly determined a particular decision, EU law has had important influence on policy-makers and officials.”

They could have also made the point that it undermines our democratic traditions by influencing the policies offered to us by our political parties so much so that it hardly makes any difference which party holds power in Westminster. Next time your local MP comes knocking at your door begging for your vote just inquire of them which of their policies do not coincide directly with EU laws.

Back to the pamphlet, it explains so many of the influences the EU policy rules and regulations have on our day to day life that it would have be easer to point to those one or two things the EU does not affect, but that of course is not the point of phamphlet.

Most people would be surprised to learn that the EU affects things as diverse as:

Fortnightly bin collections

Higher household electricity bills

more wind turbines

Soaring water bills

Higher council tax

New Royal Mail pricing rules

Bureaucracy at the bank

High price of energy saving products

Banning vitamins and minerals

Fewer and more expensive fish

Extinction of swathes of vegetable varieties

Creation of Railtrack (yes the conservatives were only following an EU directive)

Transport and motoring

Government’s inability to expel EU criminals from the UK.

Media, sport and entertainment

Abolition of the 192 inquiries service

Higher costs for the NHS

This is to name just a few areas where the EU presently affects our daily lives, and the Lisbon Treaty will effectively pass many more areas of power to the EU.

Demophobe: One who is fearful of the democratic process and democracy in general.

Technorati Tags:
EU Law, Elephant in the room, Eu Propaganda, the EU affects us all
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |