I do not know about this the only place it has appeared is on

Huffington Post

which claims that Margot Wallström, the EU commissioner for Propaganda has thrown her bonnet into the ring for the job of EU Council president!

If true the rejection of the Treaty by the Irish would be a sore disappointment in more ways than one for Wallström.

The EU Propaganda Minister writing about the Irish referendum says:

“I respect fully the NO vote from Ireland.”

Unfortunately she than starts to argue that perhaps her respect is not quite a full as she claims, by repeating the Commission line;

The issues which this Treaty was designed to help resolve have not gone away: In particular, how can 27 countries take decisions using a system designed for 12? Especially when the decisions needing to be taken relate to such complex issues as globalisation, oil and food prices, energy supply, climate change, migration, terrorism and numerous other international problems which require international solutions.

The Commission President has already stated that the Treaty is still alive but Mrs Wallstrom thinks the matter should be left to the heads of state to sort out although she is quick to point out that most of those Member states that have not yet ratified will carry on as planned. So no respect for the Irish there!

Stating the legal case the Commissioner said;

The fact is that all Treaties have to be ratified unanimously so as things stand it is not possible for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force as foreseen. note :Apparently  “as foreseen” was added later see EU Referendum for the details.

Then falling back on the Commission reliance on surveys particularly those taken for the Commission, and its obvious belief that these controlled exercises in public polling is equates somehow to real votes casts in real elections and real referenda, she says;

Surveys in the coming days, including one by the Commission, will examine the Irish result, looking at the reasons why people voted Yes and No. This will give us more information and a basis on which to analyse the implications in a more considered manner.

The supposed reasons invented or real of course do not matter a damn, the Irish have voted no! That should be the end of the treaty according to the rules of the EU, but it will not be, because they will not let is go and it will be up to the Irish government to come up with some way of overcoming or reversing the objection of the Irish people.
There is not really much point in commenting on the Commissioners EU blog but as some of my taxes are going towards its running costs I thought I would point out the EU is not operating under the system designed for 12 states!
You have had several treaties since that time, the last being Niece 2001, which was supposed to prepare for the enlargement by changing system.

Also the EU is not grinding to a halt it is still managing to produce quite a fair amount of legalisation without too much trouble.

Professor Anand Menon, the Director of the European Research Institute said recently:
Even under the procedures of the Nice Treaty, the enlarged European Union is functioning fine […] Voting in the Council indicates that the EU has not slowed down at all. It is producing legislation with the same speed as before. There isn’t an institutional crisis to be addressed,” In terms of decision-making, there is no evidence that it has slowed down.

Technorati Tags:
EU Propaganda Minister, EU Commission President, Irish referendum
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

It is good to see that the EU Commissioner is in no way trying to influence the outcome of the Irish referendum and is not in anyway interfering in a wholly internal matter for the Irish people. Other than her propaganda visit to Ireland to promote the Treaty .
Perhaps therefore it is only desperation following the one bad poll, that forced her to link to a totally

The European Movement objective is to contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe

one sided pro-EU anti-USA spoof guide to the Lisbon Treaty.

Written by a certain Jason O’Mahony who shares a blog with Ciaran Toland who also claims he is not involved in any organisation campaigning in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, instead is currently serving as Vice-Chairman of European Movement Ireland, of which he has been a director since 2003.

Oddly for one who is not involved in any organisation campaigning in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, The European Movement objective is to contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe it is supported by the EU Commission and has in the past few years had its funding from the Irish government increased substantially so much so that it is now nothing more than the EU arm of the Irish government.

Former Minister of State Noel Treacy said of the EMI

There is a clear need for the Public to gain a firmer appreciation of what the EU does and how, and the many reason, that it remains very important for us in Ireland. Governments have a responsibility to promote Public Awareness, but this is not enough. Organisations like the European Movement are essential to a well-rounded Public Debate on the future of Europe and Ireland’s place within it. You have set yourselves an ambitious Work Programme and I believe that what you are setting out to achieve, is extremely important. Because of this, I was pleased that we were able to double the funding to the European Movement for this year, which is a clear recognition by this Government of the central role of the Movement in informing our citizens about the European Project. I am confident that this increased Funding, and a reinvigorated Organisation, will enable you as a National Movement, to make a significant impact in raising People’s Awareness of the European Union’s enduring relevance to all of us, on this Island.

Support organisation of the EU like the European Movement, have a clear tendency to claim that they are Non-partisan, they present themselves as honest brokers who are only offering a public service by presenting independent, objective, unbiased, straightforward and open information about the EU, when in reality they are nothing more than a propaganda unit of the EU disseminating half truths and spinning the EU line.

A point made by

The Chairman of Irish Select Committee on Foreign affairs who said

The European Movement is not a public information body; it is a highly successful propaganda body and has been so from the beginning. I am aware of the merits of many of the people who participate in it, but we should not describe it as anything other than what it is. It did not pretend to be anything else from the beginning. In terms of its future role, if it is to be the agency for a wider debate, it must change its remit.

Lisbon Treaty A Spoofers Guide to How to Not Vote No

I defy anyone to read this so called honest assessment of the Lisbon treaty and still claim the EMI has in fact changed its remit, it is still nothing more than an organisation dispensing misinformation about the EU to further its basic objective, which it openly admits is to contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe.

Technorati Tags:
Irish referendum, European Movement Ireland, propaganda body,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

As if the Irish did not have enough to worry about with their referendum coming up in a couple of

so if we have to rely on the EU to save the planet, we are all doomed anyway.

weeks on the impenetrable rehash of the EU Constitution. What with their own political leaders and just about every EU schemer letting them know that a no vote would create untold doom laden inconvenience for Ireland. And the Irish people really should show their gratitude to the EU for its larges, without which they would still be in the dark ages, by voting yes.

Just to add to their concerns in a very strange comment piece from Peter Sain ley Berry on EUOBSERVER; he seems to be equating a possible no vote in Ireland’s referendum with not only the end of civilisation as we know it, but the end of all life on earth. That is a big load to shoulder for the Irish.
(more…)

Reported in the Irish Examiner Margot Wallstrom, complains that television stations give EU news less than a tenth of the airtime they give national news, undermining citizens’ right to information and preventing them having a democratic input, she said the public wants more information about the Union.
Information is only important as part of the democratic principal, Wallstrom wants to use it instead of democracy

To overcome this, she plans to help television stations throughout Europe increase their coverage by co-operating with one another, by providing them with news and documentaries about what is happening in Brussels and beef-up existing information for the public and journalists.

Wallstrom said; “We shape the everyday lives of people in Europe so it’s necessary to provide them with the information.”

(more…)

Margot Wallstrom is getting her knickers in a twist about the St Georges day splash in some of the British news papers, she mentions it on her Blog, suggesting it must be April fools day! and judging by the denials appearing from as far away as China and India the Ministers propaganda department must have been working flat out to dampen down the story.

Yes Minister we do know its old news, and yes we do know that these maps have been around for a long time, but it is silly to try to argue that this is nothing to do with the EU, yes the maps were produced by one of the cross border administrations but was working to an EU agenda and it was financed by the EU.
(more…)

Professor Menon is concerned that political parties only use referenda as a political tactic not constitutional principle does this include the referenda for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly London assembly etc, other than which all parties promised a referendum of the treaty which failed and Lisbon does everything that treaty did.

The other reason referenda are sniffed at is because they are notoriously bad at providing answers to the question actually asked. And people would vote either according to their view of the Union as a whole, or to make a point about something else entirely.

(more…)

Apparently the EU Commission has denied reports that it is putting off announcing anything that could cause controversy ahead of Ireland’s referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Strange then that the same article has a link to the document that was initially leaked in which it is quite clear that there is a concerted effort to maintain a low profile and not announce anything controversial until after the Irish Referendum.

This is the way the EU works and always has when there is any danger of it the EU being a deciding factor when the voters have an opportunity to vote, in an important decision for the, the EU will do its utmost to prevent that happening.

This I discovered this morning when browsing some old EU Parliament releases.

When I came across this snippet;

At an exchange of views on 19 December with the Committee on Institutional Affairs (chairman: Mr Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO - EPP, E) on the outcome of the Dublin European Council, Mr Klaus HÄNSCH, President of the European Parliament, insisted that the IGC would only examine the questions of reform of the institutions and flexibility after the UK general election. This was to ensure that these subjects did not become a central part of the election campaign in Britain.News report : 19-12-96

We are told that we cannot have a vote on the Lisbon Treaty because it is just another treaty that has not constitutional effects the Hose of Lords has already issued a report to that effect, it is unfortunate therefore that House of Lords will not be the final arbiter of the effects of the Treaty but the ECJ and the Lords statement conflicts with the messages from the ECJ.

The government’s stance can also be challenged on a different point, one that nobody seem to recognise; if there are no constitutional affects of the Treaty then why on earth are the Irish holding a referendum? The ECJ has already made it clear that British our opt-outs are not a solid defence; they can and probably will come under direct challenge as soon as the EU starts to work in the new areas of competence.
Of course the other argument against us being allowed a referendum is that we would not just vote on the contents of the treaty.
(more…)

The British Education Act expressly prohibits political indoctrination by banning the teaching of partisan political views and by requiring that political issues are presented in a balanced manner.
Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 clearly states that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers

shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.

Further if political issues are brought to the attention of school pupils, the authority, the governors and the head are required by Section 407 to take

such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that… they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

The legal position is thus quite clear: Not only are school teachers required to refrain from partisan political activities in the classroom, they are under an active obligation to prevent other individuals and groups from engaging in such pursuits. The direct responsibility lies with the governing body and the head teacher.
(more…)

The EU propaganda Minister seems to be spinning a line in her latest post on her blog she implies that the British press is lying in reports about the Council Presidents Plane, Palace and Staff.

The post is not clear about the facts ie, is the press right to state that the president will have a plane, palace and a large personal staff.

Only it seems the press is lying when they report that these decisions were taken at a dinner attended by the Propaganda Minister, who attests that this subject was not raised at the dinner.
(more…)

Both the BBC and the Guardian report on the WTO rulling that the EU Bannana import regime breaks international trade rules. Because the rules block imports from Ecuador.

But this cannot be the EU argues that when our press point out the EU has rules governing bannanas that they are perpetrating a myth.

The EU Propaganda Minister has now updated her Blog to cover yesterday’s announcement of a further Plan D initiative.
From the measures undertaken so far with Plan D and the measures intended with this new proposal one can safely conclude that all them are propaganda initiatives.
But according the spin Plan D was regarded it as a starting point for a long term democratic reform process.
The Commissioner says - The Plan D projects have confirmed for me what I already felt to be true: when they are consulted on complex political issues citizens will not only respond – they will demand more. Plan D has shown that European democracy should and could be founded on an active European citizenship. There is clear demand for measures to strengthen and expand political dialogue on European issues. It is clear that deliberative and participatory democracy can usefully supplement representative democracy.

It would seem then that EU Democracy is going to be developed along the lines of deliberative democracy and deliberative polling, which the EU calls participatory democracy.

Deliberation has long been considered an essential component of genuine democracy.

deliberative democracy is rooted in the ideal of self-governance in which political truths emerge not from the clash of pre-established interests and preferences but from reasoned discussion about issues involving the common good. In a representative democracy this would entail an ongoing open debate with our representatives on policy matters rather than just leaving it to their individual preferences, the policies would evolve not from the party machines but from a public debate.

Unfortunately within the EU context this means an initial acceptance of the undemocratic methods so far employed to create the European Union, and turning a blind eye to the fact that the institution would not exists in the first places had we the choice in the matter.

If one takes a step back it is easy to see why the EU is so keen on the idea of a deliberative democracy; its debates are easy to control from the centre, it will set the agenda for debate, it will control the forum for debate, only those issues desired will be debated and it creates the semblance of democracy without ever having to actually face the voters. Thus leaving the decision up to the technocratic centre on whether to implement any of the proposals emanating from a debate.

The power at all times remains within the control of the centre.

Deliberative Democracy implies that citizens would be allowed the chance to take the reins of state. however, in reality it is an illusion.

William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, wrote in 1693:

Let the people think they govern, and they will be governed.”

Taking a … random sample of the electorate and transporting these people … to a single place. Immerse the sample in the issues, with carefully balanced briefing materials, with intensive discussions in small groups, and with the chance to question competing experts and politicians. At the end of several days of working through the issues face to face, poll the participants in detail. The resulting survey offers a representation of the considered judgments of the public.
So essentially it is polling after a period of attitude adjustment because the EU will only offer a balanced view from an EU perspective.

Unless there is a way to curb and control politicians within a system then all the talk in the world will not make it democratic. Deliberative democracy and deliberative polling aims to pacify citizens, not leash politicians.

Being permitted to talk about politics is no substitute for genuine democracy being permitted to vote when your vote can be ignored is no substitute for democracy, and that is all the EU is offering a substitute for democracy.

Technorati Tags:
Democracy, Plan D, genuine democracy, deliberative democracy
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

A comment on this blog has prompted me to argue against an EU wide referendum on the EU treaty, or anything else for that matter.
The EU treaty is called a treaty because it is an international agreement made between the member states, who are exercising their sovereign power.

The fact that EU treaties create a constitution of the EU and any debate about the ramifications following from the powers given to EU on our national constitution, are immaterial to the fact that calling for a referendum on a treaty from the body that is the recipient of the pooled powers, is both a waste of time and self defeating.

In the first place whether we are allowed a referendum is nothing to do with the European Union, a point confirmed more than once by the EU Propaganda Minister herself on her blog;

No doubt some readers will once again demand referenda but as I have said before that is a matter for each Member State.

Understanding that the EU is part of the decision making process when it comes to the treaties, but I would argue that they are overstepping their powers by interfering in these matters. And I would agree that the Propaganda Minister is being only legally correct when she makes her claim. As she is ignoring the interference emanating from the EU commission and the EU parliament. The EU Parliament for instance, was the first parliament to vote on and accept the EU constitution, just to get the propaganda ball rolling, they did this even though that parliament’s vote on the treaty has no relevance at all.

I recognise that that is a voice calling in the wilderness, because the EU Commission and the EU parliament are some of the main movers in the demands for more power to be invested in the EU, and the retention of the powers it already has. I know that the IGC of the heads of member states, is being conflated in the minds of many, with the Council of the European Union, and that the Council decided the details of the Lisbon treaty and mandated the IGC to agree those terms without change.

But in reality the EU itself has no legal power to force the member states to agree to anything relative to which powers they delegate to the EU. As those powers are delegated from the member state, it is a matter for internal debate and decision within the state.

So it is entirely a waste of time to build an EU wide pressure group in order to influence the EU on its constitution.

But worse than being a waste, it plays right into the hands of the federalists and helps them assuage their own desperation for a popular mandate. That is exactly what they need and all they will need to back their claim, that they have a popular mandate.

Because if the people can be persuaded to approach the EU that would be a tactic admission that we accept the EU as our government, that we accept that the EU has the right to speak for us to our own governments! we would be gifting the EU with its popular mandate.

That is why the EU Propaganda minister dismisses referenda within the nation state as being only a nationalist expression, but sees the possibility of an EU wide referenda having some benefit. The only benefit of an EU wide referendum or even individual state referenda all held at the same time, is to create a propaganda coup for the EU.

Now if you want a referendum in this country then I am behind you every step of the way.

Technorati Tags:
EU Commission, EU Ministry for Propaganda, EU Parliament, EU treaty, referendum
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The EU propaganda minister has just announced the Commissions new propaganda initiative is to be launched with a budget of €7.2.

Debate Europe is part of the commission Plan D a propaganda programme started to boost the EU public image after the Constitution was voted down in 2005.

The propaganda minister said the idea was to promote the EU by using our money to stage exhibitions, debates, seminars and training sessions on EU matters, these will involve EU officials in activities at regional and local levels in the different member states.

The Propaganda minister said in addition to involving citizens in decision-making, the EU is also still aiming to make itself more popular.

She also said “It’s ironic, isn’t it, that 50 years after the foundation of the European Union, we are still discussing democracy and how can we become more democratic,”

“A lot more” could indeed be done to improve democracy within the EU, as “decisions have moved up to the European level, but the political debates, the media reporting and so on, are still mainly national,”

Isn’t it ironic that the Propaganda minister is worrying about democracy in the EU whilst at the same time doing absolutely nothing to address the subject. I have told her before on her Blog that debating the EU does not introduce democracy into the EU, only allowing the voters a real voice would do that.

We can debate all they like and learn all they wish about the EU, but at the end of the day the EU has ensured that there is no mechanism by which we can influence the policies or the direction of the EU. That is why I call Margot Wallstrom the propaganda minister because that is exactly what she is about.

Ms Wallstrom please take note democracy, is not information, it is not debate, the only way to involve citizens in the decision making process is to allow them a vote and then to be ruled by that vote. You do not ignore the expressed wishes of the citizens and still have the moral right to call yourself or the organisation you work for democratic.

You are not, and the EU is not, democratic, so will you please stop using our money on propaganda initiatives to try to convince us that you are. I will call you a democrat when you can be voted out of office for wasting our money on propaganda.

tag: Propaganda, Plan D, democracy, anti-democratic

Technorati Tags:
Propaganda, Plan D, democracy, anti-democratic
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Now let me see :

A new award announced - The University Association of Contemporary European Studies - is delighted to announce the short-listed nominations for the

‘Reporting Europe’ awards, honouring excellence in reporting on the European Union in the English-speaking media. The 2008 UACES-Reuters ‘Reporting Europe’ award acknowledges high quality, informed journalism on any aspect of the EU from either a positive or critical perspective during 2007.

UACE web site says it provides an independent forum for informed debate and discussion of European affairs. Since 1969, UACES has brought together academics involved in researching and teaching on Europe with practitioners active in European affairs. It encourages the involvement of people from a variety of disciplines which have a European emphasis. It is directly involved in promoting research and establishing teaching and research networks.

UACE offers Funding for EU based conferences and events paid for the EU commission it is a conduit for financing student loans paid for by the EU Commission

It is the primary umbrella organisation for British academics researching the European Union. Is financially backed by the EU commission and its members promote a pro-EU integration agenda through university courses.

The term independent seems to be another one of those that the EU has co-opted to mean anything it likes. To me independent means independent from the organisation which one is studying. I cannot get my little head around the idea that someone whose studies are wholly or mostly finance by a political organisation would be considered independent. Anyway I wander off the point.

So the Short-Listed Nominees for 2008 (the first year) made to honour a leading journalist who’s writing and reporting on Europe has made a real impact.

As the award acknowledges high quality, informed journalism on any aspect of the EU from either a positive or critical perspective during 2007. It should be interesting to see who has been short listed.

But first I would like to take a squint at the panel, what did the short listing, because I think I noticed an old friend amongst them.

Yes, Yes, I am right, listed amongst those Independent Members of the Jury who are deciding which of our leading practitioners of high quality, informed journalism to acknowledge, it is none other than the Erudite Mole!

This is the same, then plain Mr Erudite Mole, who was the home office mandarin who after spending a life time in the service of his country, in several different high profile posts. Up and went and resigned, just because Tony Blair offered us - the little people -, a referendum on the EU Constitution. Something Mr Mole could not countenance. Oh no not at all, because as he only so freely confessed he has been secretly working behind the scenes in the interest of the European Project and against the best interests of this country for years.

But in the topsy turvy world of the EU where democracy means not democracy, and independence means not independent Mr Mole was knighted for his what can only be called treason, and become Sir Stephen Wall GCMG LVO, Former EU Adviser to Tony Blair and Hon President of UACES, Sir Stephen, is just about certain to pop up anywhere he can continue working for the European Project.

Then we have another totally independent jury person - Dr Martyn Bond who began his career in the BBC. He subsequently taught European Studies in the New University of Ulster before joining the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers in Brussels staying in Brussels to work on overseas aid issues in the Council of Ministers and on relations with the European Parliament Press Office was Head of the European Parliament Office in London, 1989-2000 Director of the Federal Trust, where he is now special advisor on EU Enlargement.

Dr Amelia Hadfield BA (King’s, Halifax), MA (Dalhousie), PhD (Kent) Lecturer in European International Relations

Mr William Horsley was a senior BBC foreign correspondent is Chairman of the Association of European Journalists in the UK.

Mr John Lloyd, a senior Financial Times Journalist and founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University

Mr David Schlesinger, who angered staff in April 2005 when he described Reuters’ editorial output as “having terrible quality problems” in an email mistakenly sent out to the whole company. Journalists called Mr Schlesinger’s position “untenable” and the National Union of Journalists passed a motion that stated: “It’s particularly offensive for him to denigrate his staff at a time when Reuters journalists are risking their lives in many countries to provide outstanding coverage.”

Prof Alex Warleigh-Lack previously Chief of Staff to the Chair of the European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Consumer Protection and Public Health. He is Chair of UACES for the period between September 2006 and September 2009, having been a member of the UACES Committee between 2001-4 and 2005-6.

So there we have it the full list of those will judge independently high quality, informed journalism on any aspect of the EU from either a positive or critical perspective during 2007.

And the short list is……..

Bertrand BENOIT, Berlin Bureau Chief, Financial Times
Whose side are they on? Shifting borders are nothing new. After centuries of Franco-German conflict, modern Alsace, and one family on particular - shows that European integration is not an impossible dream. (Financial Times Weekend Magazine: 24 March 2007)

Allan LITTLE, BBC World Affairs Correspondent
The Road to Rome (BBC Radio 4 and World Service) 25 March 2007

Mark MARDELL, BBC Europe Editor

J Clive MATTHEWS, Writer, Editor, Online Content Consultant
Blog: Nosemonkey’s EUtopia

John PEET, Europe Editor, The Economist

What is there to say except this is obviously a well balanced independently minded list of independent high quality independent well informed independent journalists who`s independent writing and reporting on Europe has made a real impact. Selected by an independent jury.

That’s the EU for nothing but democratic open and independent we are so, so, so, lucky to be governed by such an independent organisation.

Not in the lease partisan just good old independent.

For another view of independence

tag: Reporting Europe, UACE, British academics, informed journalism,

Technorati Tags:
Reporting Europe, UACE, British academics, informed journalism
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

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 |

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 |

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 |

Telegraph Letters reply to The Minister for the EU

Sir - I read with interest Mr Murphy’s assertion that 14 of the 50 extensions to majority voting contained in the so-called reform treaty are procedural “to improve EU efficiency”.

That has left me struggling to decide whether to use the word oxymoron to describe the statement, or just half of it to refer to Mr Murphy.

Ian Walker, Colchester, Essex